Golden State Warriors will win the Western Conference.
Debate Rounds (3)
BOP on pro because he stated a statement and took a side.
My opening statement: I wish this was 10,000 characters.
Thank you for starting a very controversial topic. I will be taking the side that the Golden State Warriors will not win the Western Conference, but be beat out by other teams. Since this debate will be highly statistical, I expect no less than 10 sources per round from myself and from you. Good luck to you and me.
This argument is not very organized... Going to be hard to refute in an organized manner. Please properly arrange your arguments into a manner in which I can refute each section effectively. Thanks in advance. For now, I will just include a long whole rebuttal.
--Rebuttal I: Opponent's opening statements--
The first thing my opponent states that they have the best backcourt in the league. However, this may be false. I would like to look at Chris Paul and J.J Redick of the Los Angeles Clippers for assistance in this argument.
Chris Paul/Stephen Curry (2013-14 only) :
Points: Steph Curry, with 688
Rebounds: Chris Paul, with 155
FT: Chris Paul, with 163
Assists: Chris Paul, with 374 (League-leader)
MIN: Steph Curry, with 1,220
Advantage: Chris Paul
Klay Thompson/Jamal Crawford (2013-14 only) 
Points: Klay Thompson with 640
Rebounds: Klay Thompson with 109
FT: Jamal Crawford with 95
Assists: Jamal Crawford with 83
MIN: Klay Thompson with 1,249 (League-leader)
Advantage: Klay Thompson
So as you can see, the Clippers rival the Warriors easily, even with prime backcourt J.J Redick out. The Clippers and the Warriors are tied in the backcourt.
The next argument my opponent stated was that they have one of the best lockdown defenses in the game. I don't get how one can say that. The Warriors defense is slightly above average, but not ranking upon the best. The Golden State Warriors rank tenth in points allowed per game . Above them, in the west are Memphis, Oklahoma, and San Antonio. The Clippers are also only 0.5 points per game allowed behind them. A few games could change that.
Furthermore, the Golden State Warriors rank tenth in the Western conference in letting opponents take shots. In each game, they allow their opponent to shoot 86 shots a game . Along that fact, they also are sixth in opponent three point shooting percentage .
On to the next section of my opponent's arguments. He states the Warriors have a deep bench that will produce good numbers in the playoffs. I beg to differ. Apparently, Bleacher Report does not like the bench of the Golden State Warriors and fails to include them in the top ten benches . Out of the top ten benches, four are opponents in the Western Conference ranking above the Warriors currently.
Next, my opponent states the "uncertainties" of the other teams, without noting that if Stephen Curry gets injured, the team's shooting goes down the toilet.
Houston Rockets: The Dwight Howard/James Harden experiment sure seems to be working out, as Dwight Howard and James Harden are putting up great numbers this season. Both players account for leading all of the major statistical categories for the Rockets . Howard is the defensive player with rebounds and blocks (13.1 reb per game and 1.8 blocks per game), while James Harden is putting the offense on his back by leading in points, steals and assists (24 PPG, 5.2 AST/G, and 1.3 steals per game).
Oklahoma City Thunder: You state Russell Westbrook and Kevin Durant are the only two people on the OKC Thunder that will put up any points and do offense. You have obviously failed to do research on this topic. Have you ever heard of Serge Ibaka?! He's netting a nice 14.1 PPG while grabbing a team high 8.8 rebounds per game . That makes about 70 points per game between three people (Westbrook, Ibaka, Durant). And if you think the Thunder's other guys don't score 20 points to get to 90, it is insane. They will usually put up more than 100.
Los Angeles Clippers: You say that the Doc Rivers experiment "may not" work out. From what source does that come from? So far, they have a better record than the Warriors at 22-12 . Ten games above .500 sounds like you got a nice set of coaches and players. I could just as easily say that the Golden State Warriors backcourt will falter later into the season.
San Antonio Spurs: Again, you say "I think." This is not a proven source and is not a true fact. So far, they have been doing just fine with their age, putting up numbers just as good, if not better, than their last season .
Also, you say that Andre Iguodala is better than Jarrett Jack. True, but Dwight Howard just replaced Omer Asik for the Rockets. That is a much better upgrade than the Golden State Warriors.
Thank you for reading.
Before i do continue i just want to put out that i am not a warriors fan so none of what i am saying is just because i am protecting my team it is because i do genuinely believe that the warriors can win the west.
You seem to focus far too much on statistics which is a common mistake by a lot of nba analysts, for example Skip Bayless and Bill Simmons. I am not saying that statistics are useless, there is just a lot more to the game than that.
You have showed statistically that the Clippers backcourt can match up to Warriors but that takes me back to my Doc Rivers theory. Going into this season the Clippers were meant to be quite a bit better than Golden State and win the pacific division without too much difficulty. But 34 games into the season for both teams the warriors find themselves only a game back on the clippers. You may think yes the Clippers are then still better then? But no. Comparing how many games the starters have missed this season, the Clippers add up to a combined 1 game missed (Chris Paul - 1) and the warriors starters add up to 16 games missed (Stephen Curry - 3 Andre Iguodala - 12 Andrew Bogut - 1). If the Warriors had these starters a few more games could have been won and the Warriors would be ahead of the Clippers. So in conclusion I would not put Doc Rivers time as a coach a success yet at the Clippers. Also if you want to go by standings you are making me think at this moment in time you think the Trail Blazers are going to win the west.
You have said that you wanted to focus a lot on stats but when you argue about Golden State's bench you go off the opinion of Bleacher Report. Also not in anyway did i mention the Warriors bench being one of the best in the league. It is good enough and deep enough to give players rests without giving up to many points and not throwing away leads until the starters go back in the game. But i can also argue that the bench will not play a big role for the warriors as much as it has to for other teams as the warriors have their 5 starters and harrison barnes on the bench who has proved himself as a starter and in the playoffs. So mid-way through the second quarter the Warriors can start to run any 3 of these 6 in one line-up and 3 in the other balancing out their players and never really having a weak line-up on the court and not to mention not many team have 6 all-star calibre players on their roster.
Houston Rockets: Howard and Harden are playing very well in the regular season but when it comes to the playoffs every team kicks it up a gear and you need all five men on the court to play their best, but when the Rockets play it seems they always have 4 players on the court as they do not have a good power forward on that team. Their best power forwards are terrence jones and Donatas Motiejunas who would get beasted and feasted on in the post against David Lee. You can try defend Terrence Jones all you like this season but all other 29 teams starting power forward is better. You can try play Howard and Asik together but it would be idiotic to play two players who have both been hacked in their career at a point to shoot free throws at the same time, not to mention that Asik has also showed his immaturity this season by going in a mood with the coaches about getting replaced.
Oklahoma City Thunder: I think you forget that Russell Westbrook was injured at the start of the season and when he has started he has not been getting the minutes he is used to so that is why serge ibaka's numbers are so good this season, so expect his numbers to drop in the regular season and in the playoffs to around 12ppg so i can only see the Thunder picking up early 80's in the playoffs and expect them to give up a lot of points with that big piece of **** Kendrik Perkins in the paint.
San Antonio Spurs: This is the only team that i can see beating the Warriors this season as they players are still performing well, coach popovich is still there and they have a bench who know what they are good at and stick to it, but with the Warriors showing that they can give them a hard series i dont see why they cant beat them. Richard Jefferson missed 2 free throws late in game 1 which could have sealed it and if warriors still did take game 2 who knew what could have happened. But what the Warriors gained the most from that series was invaluable experience on how to play such a well disciplined club and maybe how to sneak a series from them.
I have found a significant problem with my opponent's resolution. He states that the Warriors WILL win the Western Conference. That means 100% of the time, the Warriors will win it without a doubt. He must prove that.
I thank my opponent for a well-thought second round which he obviously put a lot of time and effort into.
I ask, that in the third round, rebuttals and arguments are kept to a limited stance because you will not be able to refute my rebuttals, and that is somewhat unfair. My opponent can accept or decline in the next round. Anyway, onto my rebuttals.
Also, I'm a Warriors fan. This is kinda ironic..
--Rebuttal 1a: The Backcourt and The Clips--
In my opponent's first argument, he (first) says that I focus too much on the stats. Yes, I do focus on the stats a ton, because in these types of debates, it is really hard to win just by throwing unproven things out there. So stats and experts is really the only thing I can really turn to in this case.
So, onto the main section of the arguments/rebuttals of my opponent.
In my opponent's first main argument, my opponent tries to prove the backcourt issue wrong by pointing out injuries. However, you got the numbers wrong. 5 different players on the Clippers have been injured  compared to 8 on the Warriors . So the injury number is favoring the Clippers, but not by as much as you think. Second, the rash of injuries to the Warriors can also show that they are not durable in the playoffs. Stephen Curry and Andre Igoudala are both delicate (as pointed out by your stats) and may not be able to complete the whole season. So, this argument does not help your case at all.
The conclusion part of my opponent's argument is more stuff about Doc Rivers. I still await to see exactly what his faults in coaching are. You have only said that he is not a success with no evidence for it. Point out his faults before I refute, please.
--Rebuttal 2a: The Bench--
My opponent's opening statement was now pointing out that I used opinions. I thought that is what you wanted me to do. First you say used WAY to many statistics, and now you say it was wrong to go off of an opinion of experts... please explain.
On to the actual argument of this side. My opponent states that he did not say that the Warriors had one of the best benches. While he did not say this in a direct manner, he did come borderline to it, which invoked my rebuttal:
"...deep balanced bench that will give them good numbers in the playoffs."
And now, you say that you can argue that the bench won't help/need to help in the playoffs. Which one is it? I believe that benches do need to help in the playoffs. Proving that the Warriors do not have a good bench affects your resolution.
However, you state that the bench is "deep enough" to give the Warriors starters time off. However, San Jose Mercury News quotes something very different than what you are saying.
"The Warriors bench is still very much a work in progress, but it's at least one-fifth of the way there."
Like most teams, the Warriors do spot one (but really, only one) bright spot. And one bright spot on the bench is not nearly enough to propel one through the playoffs. Harrison Barnes is not doing as well as you think, only shooting 42% from the field and 69% from the free throw line . Also, he's not really a "bench player," as he has started 15 out of his 31 games this season. And Draymond Green, the "bright spot," is only shooting 38% from the field . This is not a playoff-strong bench, let alone a Conference Winning bench.
--Rebuttal 3a: Houston--
My opponent, right of the bat (right through the hoop? Into the end zone? Into the net?), says that they have four players (good) on the court, but no PF. He states that the best power forward on the Rockets is Terrance Jones. Yes, that is true. However, he does not lack the neccesities to be considered the fifth man on the court. The Heat won it with three main guys, and four good players overall in the starting lineup last year (LBJ, Dewayne Wade, Chris Bosh, Udonis Haslem.)
However, Terrance Jones is 18th in blocks per game . He is 5th in blocks per game (PF) in the Western Conference . Not to mention he is still putting up 10 PPG . So it is actually safe to say that Terrance Jones fits in as the Rocket's fifth man. Therefore, they do have a reasonable PF, and the ability to win the Western Conference.
Also, the need for Omer Asik is nullified, as they have all five men. Also, Omer Asik is a center. He could not beat out Dwight Howard for this spot. He is an O.K bench player (slightly above average in terms of statistical categories.)
--Rebuttal 4a: Thunder--
In my opponent's rebuttal/argument, he states that Serge Ibaka's numbers are only so good because Russell Westbrook has been out. However, this argument turns to my side when looking at it the right way.
First, Russel Westbrook being injured says that the Thunder can survive without their number 2 star and that they have backup in case of injury. I know you are going to say that this crosses out my Clippers argument, but it is not so. The Warriors have a mildly worse record than the Thunder while only missing Steph Curry for a couple games.
Second, this also shows that Serge Ibaka has the ability to step up in times of need, which means that he, and the team, are Western-Conference material. So this argument fails to help your resolution, but rather weakens it.
Also, the Thunder have been putting up about 103 PPG , so it is not fair at all to say that their numbers will ever drop to the high 80's in the playoffs. As for Kendrick Perkins, he isn't really a bench player nor anyone that the Thunder need, so he shouldn't be a big problem. Maybe a little bee sting for the Thunder, but nothing more.
Now, I fail to see any need to refute the Spurs section as you have already stated that they can beat the Golden State Warriors. However, there is one thing I would like to say. Playoff games boil down to one little mistake (as in game 1, as you pointed out) that really describes who a team is. So by pointing out the two missed free throws, it shows that the Warriors are not clutch in clutch moments.
Last, but not least, the Warriors pretty much had experience against playing great teams the whole 2012-13 season, and were prepared for the playoffs. And they still lost. So I can not see how they will win the Western Conference.
Thanks to pro for his time. I hand over the debate to pro for the last round. Thank you for reading.
Los Angeles Clippers: You say that the Warriors to Clippers injury number is "Not by as much as you think", but I am sure that the difference is large enough for the Warriors to win a couple of more games and not to say that players for the warriors that were injured were more key for them than the players for the Clippers that were injured. By referring to Andre Iguodala as "delicate" is nearly blasphemous. Andre Iguodala only missed 27 games in his first 9 years as a pro. Andre Iguodala is the definition of "durable". This injury is only a minor blip in his career like most pro athletes have and return from it with no setbacks. Steph Curry on the other hand to back him up with injuries is going to be tough but i will give it my best shot. When you think about it, apart from the 2011-2012 season where he only played 26-66 games, Steph has only missed 14 games in 3 season which why i think when he is giving the term injury prone i think is quite unfair. Not to mention he has proved durable in the playoffs, playing and starting all 12 games he has had and averaging just over 41 minutes a game.
A reason why the Clippers are above the Warriors at this moment is because they have played more games against the eastern conference. the clippers have played 13 games against the east while the Warriors have only played 9 and if that was the other way about the warriors would probably be ahead as the Eastern conference is a significant weaker conference than the west.
You want me to point out Doc Rivers faults as a Clippers coach so far and i mentioned one in the first round: he plays a far too different style of game to the former coach Jeff van Gundy. Doc Rivers went into the Clippers locker room and right from the start said no more lobs and slow the pace of the game down. This shows this was not a smart move from the record already shows that the Clippers are on track to have more losses than last season. He should have worked the players into playing his style and progressed them every couple of months. Also his style of play does not compliment Deandre Jordan, it means they have to trust the ball in his hands more which is not a good thing considering he is basically is useless anywhere apart from 3 feet to the rim.
I apologise for my Clippers debate being so lengthy but is the team out of the 4 which i think has the worst chance to beat Golden State.
Houston Rockets: No team has ever won the championship with only four good players, even the Miami Heat. The Miami heat has many assets last season and 2 seasons ago: The four players you mentioned, Mario Chalmers, Norris Cole, Ray Allen (only last season), Chris Anderson(only last season) and they had players who have showed in the past that they could be trusted. Shane Battier, the Heat could trust him to shoot 3's and he hit 5-5 one game in the 2013 finals. Mike MIller, the Heat could trust him to shoot 3's and he hit 7 3's one game in the 2012 finals. Now when you look down the Rockets roster there are only 4 people on the roster who have proved that you can trust them or go to them to get a basket. Going back to Terrence Jones, when he plays dominant front courts in the playoffs he will be a nobody and the rockets will be at a 48 minute disadvantage.
Oklahoma City Thunder: Russell Westbrook being injured clearly shows that they CANNOT survive without him shown by the 2013 playoffs when the Memphis Grizzlies tore them apart without him.
Your second point does the complete opposite than what it says. It does not cancel out my argument as Serge Ibaka was unable to step up against the Grizzlies when he was needed.
The Warriors on the other hand has shown they can survive playing without one of their main players in David Lee, beating a very talented Denver Nuggets squad which if they didn't run into the Warriors would have made a long run in the playoffs. The Warriors also showed their depth in their bench and front court by giving the San Antonio Spurs are difficult series without their starting power forward.
Thunder just dont have enough players to produce, even though they do average 103ppg that is because this is the regular season. Durant and Westbrook (when he has been playing) will be finding it easy to score and not to mention they have played 14 games against the poor eastern conference. When it is the playoffs, they are playing better teams. It is harder defence and they will need players to score. Only 3 teams in the playoff seeds just now only have 4 players averaging more than 10ppg, they are one of them and I guarantee none of those teams will do well in the playoffs.
San Antonio Spurs: You say the Warriors are not clutch, well i disagree as Mark Jackson did not choose to have the ball in Richard Jeffersons hands. It was mere luck that he was able to get a lose ball and go on the fast break before getting fouled. This could have easily happened to the Spurs and Jeff Ayres or Malcolm Thomas could have been shooting these free throws and the same thing could have happened to them. If it was up to Mark Jackson whose hands the ball should have been on, i am sure he would have choose Stephen Curry or Klay Thompson.
You also say that the Warriors picked up experience from playing the spurs in the regular season but my lord, the difference between a playoff game and a regular season game is unbelievable. Opposing star players get more minutes so you have to endure a lot of quality basketball, opposing coaches will run plays that they have never ran the whole season, genuine human nature will have you more nervous than usual so you will have to learn how to manage that, the atmosphere at opposing team stadiums and there are many more contrasts that i could go on about.
I would like to thank the con for a very interesting and enjoyable debate and I hope fans of the teams i have debated against do not get to angry or butt hurt, this is merely my opinion.
My opponent has obviously not paid any attention to my request to keep the argument short in the last round. He posted his longest argument, by far, in the third round. However, it does hurt him more than it hurts me, as he can't respond to my rebuttals. He may NOT refute or post any comments in the comment section about my arguments, as he brought this upon himself.
Also, NO BUTTHURT FANS.
And to make this debate to the largest extent of ironic, I hate both the Thunder and the Clippers... Anyway, onto rebuttals. I apologize how long they have to be, but in my defense, your rebuttal was long.
--Rebuttal 1a: Clippers--
In this argument (and all of his arguments) he refers to the PAST seasons to help him out. However, we are talking about the present and future here. The San Francisco Giants won in 2012, and then collapsed in 2013. This shows that the past, which you relied very heavily on, is not always reliable.
Now, you state that injuries. Before I start my rebuttal on this one, I would like to point out a definition error of yours:
Blasphemous: expressing or involving impiousness or gross irreverence towards God, a divine being, or something sacred .
...How was what I said an insult to God or something sacred? Voters, please note this in S&G. So, I do not need to refute the Andre Igoudala part. But I will anyway. You state that in the past, Andre Igoudala has only missed 27 games. This season, he has missed twelve. This shows signs of him getting older and less durable, as the past can and has worn down even a tough guy like him.
Then you state injuries and Steph Curry. You show he has been durable in every year except 2011-12. When stating this, you also do not know (and failed to research) the exact number of games he has missed, and instead used a 40-game space for yourself. Furthermore, you were OFF on that stat even with the wide margin you gave yourself. Steph Curry has missed a total of 70 games since the start of his career . That is only twelve games away from a WHOLE SEASON. Giving him the injury prone label seems fair to me.
Now you state that the Clippers have played more games against the Eastern Conference than the Warriors. Yes, but only by a four game margin (27 to 23.) Also noted, the Eastern Conference also means the Heat and Pacers. One of the Clippers' me was against the Heat, and another against the Pacers.
And next, the Western Conference, which is harder, proves that the Clippers are better. The Clippers are 16-7 against the Western Conference, while the Warriors are only 15-12 . How do you expect the Warriors to beat the West when Phoenix, San Antonio, Oklahoma, Los Angeles Clippers, and the Trail Blazers have better Western Conference records than them?
Whoa! The style of Doc Rivers hasn't been fitting DeAndre Jordan?! He is shooting 65% from the field (leads league), has netted 207 points, and has played 1,242 minutes . He is not useless from more than three feet out. Seems to be playing pretty well to me.
Next, it is almost impossible to improve upon a .683 winning percentage  in the Western Conference. This year, they are sporting a .639 win ratio , which is still very, very good for any team. They are projected to have more losses, but you can't blame that all on Doc Rivers. Some of the players have goofed up.
As for the Clippers argument, I apologize also that my rebuttal had to be that long.
--Rebuttal 2a: Houston--
You state that no team has ever won a championship with only four good players. This relies on how you define "good." I will say it means top ten in the league at your position good.
This doesn't even state that the WARRIORS have four good players. First off, there is only ONE player on the Warriors (Curry) that is in the top 5 of the big stats . Meanwhile...
Clippers: 5 appearances by two different players (Paul, Jordan)
Rockets: 3 appearances by two different players (Howard, Harden)
Thunder: 2 appearances by two different players (Ibaka, Durant)
Warriors: 1 appearance by one player (Curry.)
Now, let's see how many players the Warriors have that are truly "good."
Huh... only two! But you state that you need five good players to win a Western Conference Championship. You just crossed out your own argument. So therefore, by your logic, the Warriors CAN'T WIN. I see no need to refute this section anymore.
--Rebuttal 3a: Thunder--
Even though I have no need to continue further, I will because I am so very, very bored.
First, you state that Russell Westbrook being injured means that the Thunder can't survive without him. That was last season. As I stated before, this was last season. This is a new season and the Thunder have learned to cope without Russell Westbrook, it seems. Same point goes to Serge Ibaka.
Next, you state that the Warriors gave the Spurs a very tough series in the playoffs. Really? I beg to differ. The Spurs beat the Warriors 4-2 in the series . Just to prove that it wasn't tough, here's a breakdown:
G1: 129-127, Spurs
G2: 100-91, Warriors
G3: 102-92, Spurs
G4: 97-87, Warriors
G5: 109-91, Spurs
G6: 94-82, Spurs.
The point difference was 23, in favor of the Spurs. Next, you state that the difference between the playoffs and the regular season are huge. If they really are, tell me how the four regular-series games were split right down the middle at 2-2, just like in the playoffs? The point difference... 2 in favor of the Spurs. Just nine points, or three three pointers, away from the playoff at game four. So therefore, the Thunder will average 100ppg in the playoffs. Plus, the Spurs-Warriors matchup last season was lower-scoring than the playoffs.
You also state that only three teams in the playoff seeds have four players averaging 10+ PPG, and the Thunder are one of them. This hurts your resolution. Plus, it is false... The Warriors only have four of their five starters averaging 10 PPG . If you didn't mean starters, the Warriors have the exact minimum of players over 10 PPG. Plus, the Thunder have a guy at 9.9 PPG . One shot changes that to a 10.0, so your point is significantly, significantly weakened. Plus, the rest of the big contenders (Spurs, Rockets and Clippers) all have 5 guys over 10+ PPG. So really, the Warriors are just another contender, weak at that, in the Western Conference.
--Rebuttal 4a: Spurs--
For my last rebuttal of the day, I will only be focusing on a few points as I have less than 1,000 characters left.
First, you say that the Warriors are indeed clutch with no evidence for your claim. You say that if Richard Jefferson was not at the free throw line, they would've won. Possibly (slim chance, though), but to be clutch, you need to have most to all of your players perform in big moments. Since Richard Jefferson failed to even MAKE a free throw, this proves that the Warriors are not clutch.
Next, you state the difference between a playoff game and a regular season game, but I have already addressed that and I can not address that now due to the lack of characters. I have to end my argument here.
The debate is done, and pro did not meet his resolution, as shown in the end of rebuttal 2a (by the most) that the Warriors will without 100% doubt win the Western Conference Championship.
I thank pro for his time and you for reading.
Thank you for the debate. Take care.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cooldudebro 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Con had more sources, a better argument, and better grammar.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.