I hate finals

quick points, than I'm going to sleep

1. I never said it was inherently good or bad to shoot free throws and not threes, I said your argument was flawed because it didn't consider FTs and the effect they have on the game. You cited a stat (easier to shoot 33% from deep than 50% from the field) I merely said that comparison was stupid because if you drive you can get points in multiple ways, which messes with the percentages.

Further, I said that if you're not shooting well, an easy way to start shooting well is to get to the line and get in rhythm, I don't think I need to back that up with stats because I'm not sure anyone who has ever played basketball would disagree.

2. The Warriors may not even run set plays, they're constantly trying to use their speed to beat their individual man, thats 1 on 1 ball, you're saying its not because they attack quickly.

3. I call "cherry picking stats" you taking the teams who shot the first, fifth, sixth, and tenth most FTs per game and using them to try say that FTs are or are not important. I'm saying, that in the course of a game if your shots aren't falling it makes basketball sense to get to the line. I don't think stat reveals everything. I also said that it makes basketball sense to attack the basket in the hopes of negatively affecting the opposing team by getting them in foul trouble. Would you argue with either of those points?

4. You ask, "if 2 equally-talented teams are playing 2 different systems, what would happen?" I would say that the team with the talented big man almost always win (again, see the history of NBA champions). Which is all I've been trying to say. Look, if your team is all midgets (the Warriors) of course I'd advise playing an insane style, taking lots of quick looks and running everywhere, but if I'm building a team, my aim is not to build the Warriors, but rather a slow-it-down team, the type of team that seems to win.

You said your plea was for "teams (like the Sixers) who can't match the Spurs or Pistons' talent to consider [a run and gun style]." I say that if they can't match their talent, it doesn't matter how they play - see the Grizz, a team which you still haven't acknowledged and ran like crazy once Barone took over - those teams need to address talent as opposed to style of play.

You say that, "just like 12 or 13 seeds in the NCAA tournament have no chance unless they hoist (and make) a ton of 3s, an average NBA team can at least compete by playing the percentages and spreading the floor to get layups and 3s." I say that until a 12 or 13 seed wins a chip, it doesn't make sense to bring them up as a standard to hold. Further, "competing" for a win is different than competing for a championship.

12 and 13 seeds, just like mediocre basketball teams, don't have a chance whatever style they play because they're not good. To me - and maybe we differ here - winning a playoff series just isn't a worthy goal. Winning it all is, and I believe that it is more likely that you win it all if you build a team in the mold of the Spurs/Pistons than if you build a team in the mold of the Suns or in the mold of the Warriors. I'm not saying that the Suns or the Warriors should try to grind it out - they don't have the personal too - I'm saying that that type of talent/style of play have never been proven to win, and they play those styles because its the only way they can.