warriors, again

Here’s the problem, and its one of philosophies between us. I believe that an NBA team's only goal should be championship, you believe that their goal should always constanst slight improvement. I don’t think that a team like Golden State can win the championship, and if I’m proven wrong (I hope I am) I believe that that team would be an aberration – history would back me up.

That’s why I would never trade AI as long as he wanted to be here, why I believe in rewarding aging players who gave your team their best years, and why I’ll never stop loving George Lynch because he played well in the playoffs on a broken foot. Meanwhile, you would trade all three of those guys for Paul Pierce if you thought our beloved Stabee would give your team 3 more wins a year.



You say, “there are lots of ways to win” and maybe that’s true when it comes to winning games, but when it comes to winning championships historically it hasn’t been true. Also, as you mentioned, Dallas doesn’t have a dominant low-post presence. I wonder how GS would match up with the Spurs. I hope it would be well, but I'm not confident it would be at all.

To your points …

--

1. if by “probably a misnomer” you mean “completely and totally factually incorrect” I’ll take it. However, their goal isn’t to push the ball as much as it is to exploit matchups. Their entire gameplan revolves around creating 1 on 1 (exactly the offense you claim to hate) … but they’re a bunch of midgets so its fascinating to watch.

2. As I said before, the Warriors are based on 1 on 1 play, maybe more so than any other team ever because they don’t care who goes 1 on 1. For example, the 2001 sixers team ran an offense that was based around AI breaking down the defense, but if that failed, the team would run a set … if the ball swung to eric snow he than wouldn’t try to break down the defense. No matter what Warrior has the ball, in this series their first option is to shoot.

3. You’re cherry picking facts and you know. You’re argument is that half of the playoff teams finished in the bottom half of the league in FT attempts, which doesn’t prove much about winning a championship, or anything. Also, the Kings stunk because of a huge lack of talent. Talent is still king in the NBA, and low post talent, which demands a defensively oriented style of play and running an offense through the post, is the most effective type of talent.





4. Honestly, all your facts about the playoffs come down to philosophy. I just don’t think that making the playoffs – thereby proving that you’re one of the best 16 out of 30 teams in the NBA - and taking 3 games from the Mavs in the first round is the pinnacle of basketball success. I define that as a championship. I’m enjoying the Warriors series because its an enormous amount of fun for a first round series, but lets see if they’re still around in a round or two. You’re completely right that a team can get hot for 4 or 5 games, but last I checked it takes 16 for a chip.

5. I was talking about their playoff #s, which would make sense, unless you’re arguing that their high assist numbers were the primary reason that were 42-40 and the mavs low totals directly led to their 67 wins.

I didn’t misinterpret your argument about bad teams trying to become running teams, I ignored it because its stupid. The Celtics tried to slow it up and they got murdered, the Grizz tried to run everyone out of the building and they got murdered, the Hawks had no discernable strategy and they got murdered - if you stink you stink, I’m saying you should try to ideally build a team with the best shot not of getting hot for 5 games and winning a series, but of winning a championship.


You even admit to my point, you say your “ultimate reason for even bothering to write about this topic is not that I think it's a surefire way to win a championship,” which makes sense. Look, I love watching the Warriors, but I think its foolish to suggest that teams like those are built to give their teams the best shot at the championship. I think the Suns have a better shot because they have assembled an absurd amount of talent, but honestly I think the Spurs have the best shot because they still have Duncan.