KingsFanSince85
All-Star
Ok, since there is much debate regarding our latest draft pick and this supposed trend around the league with teams playing smaller and focusing on 3-point shooting, I thought this would be a good place to dissect and debate the topic.
Here are my thoughts and, yes, I know some of it I have stated before:
First, it's always been popular for the masses to overreact to what appears to be a current or popular trend and believe that's the way to go. Hooray for the Warriors bucking the long-standing trend and winning with a small lineup that plays outside in. They proved everybody wrong -- or did they?
I'd argue that the only reason(s) they beat Cleveland in the Finals were due to injuries to 2 all-star players (Irving, Love) and an impactful role player in Anderson Varejao that has made the NBA's All-defensive 2nd team. As we saw, the Warriors struggled with the Cavs front line of Timofey Mosgov and Tristan Thompson (not exactly all-world talents), which helped the undermanned Cavs to eek out 2 games and nearly miss out on a couple others. The Cavs really lost the series due to lack of depth, as they couldn't sustain the level of play and their regular rotation tired out late in games. It's fairly easy and logical to conclude that, if they had 2 other more than capable front line players to rotate in and out of the lineup, the Warriors would have been in serious trouble. Then, having additional scoring options in Love and Irving likely would have put Cleveland over the top. After all, they had the best player on the floor to go along with it.
Point being, let's not get carried away with the fact that the Warriors just won a title playing the lineup and style of play that they did. Furthermore, even if you don't buy into what I outlined above, the Warriors still won largely due the defense they were able to play rather than the shooting and smallish matchup problems they created. More importantly, I believe their "style" isn't sustainable --- meaning their "style" won't win them 2, 3, 4 titles.
Historically, franchises don't typically sustain and win multiple titles without one of two things --- or both. A dominant big man or a once in a generation wing player ala Bird, Jordan, Magic, Kobe and LeBron that happens to be the best player in the league at the time. While guys like Steph Curry, Kevin Durant, James Harden, Russell Westbrook, Derrick Rose, Paul George, etc. are all great players, they typically need circumstances to fall just right in order to have a real shot at winning a title. That's why Steve Nash, Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, John Stockton, Mitch Richmond, etc. never won one.
Sometimes a team comes along and bucks that trend, like the Warriors just did, but it's rare and not sustainable. When is the last time it happened? 2011 Dallas, 2008 Boston and 2007 Detroit are candidates, but they all had the best defensive big in the league (at the time) anchoring their defenses. And like this Warriors team, there were unique circumstances that helped them over the top.
In Detroit's case, Shaq and Kobe were going through severe internal strife that visibly affected the Lakers performance. In Dallas' case, it was year 1 for the big 3 who hadn't meshed together quite yet. Boston was an enigma in that they had a really strong starting 5 (kinda like the 2002/3 Kings that nearly, but didn't win). Regardless, of the circumstances, neither team sustained and won another title.
Duncan led teams have won 5 titles.
Shaq led teams have won 4 titles
Kobe led teams have won 2 titles
LeBron led teams have won 2 titles
Point is, the most surefire way to win hasn't changed. What has changed is that there aren't many capable bigs (let alone dominant bigs) around the league these days. But if you have one, you're better off putting your eggs in that basket than trying to follow this small ball trend. The teams that are doing it are doing so out of necessity, not because it's the better way to go.
Does anybody believe this Warriors team would have stood a chance against the 2002 Lakers team the Kings lost to in 7 games? They wouldn't have won a single game.
10 years from now, who would you bet on to have more titles -- Steph Curry or Anthony Davis? Think about it.
I think the Kings are on the right track going big. You just have to have the right bigs. Cousins may not be Shaq or Duncan, but he's closer to either than anyone else in the league right now. And, if WCS works out as Vlade and all Kings fans hope, we just added our Tyson Chandler/Ben Wallace to go along side him.
Yes, 3 point shooting is still very important even if you have a stud big. Just ask the Hakeem Olajuwon led Rockets of the mid-90's and the 2014 Duncan led Spurs. But the %'s of those shots are higher when coming from inside out rather than outside in. That is still and will always be the most efficient way to play. If I'm a GM of a team that has a dominant big, that's how I'm building my team.
That's my take on it, anyway. Feel free to disagree.
Here are my thoughts and, yes, I know some of it I have stated before:
First, it's always been popular for the masses to overreact to what appears to be a current or popular trend and believe that's the way to go. Hooray for the Warriors bucking the long-standing trend and winning with a small lineup that plays outside in. They proved everybody wrong -- or did they?
I'd argue that the only reason(s) they beat Cleveland in the Finals were due to injuries to 2 all-star players (Irving, Love) and an impactful role player in Anderson Varejao that has made the NBA's All-defensive 2nd team. As we saw, the Warriors struggled with the Cavs front line of Timofey Mosgov and Tristan Thompson (not exactly all-world talents), which helped the undermanned Cavs to eek out 2 games and nearly miss out on a couple others. The Cavs really lost the series due to lack of depth, as they couldn't sustain the level of play and their regular rotation tired out late in games. It's fairly easy and logical to conclude that, if they had 2 other more than capable front line players to rotate in and out of the lineup, the Warriors would have been in serious trouble. Then, having additional scoring options in Love and Irving likely would have put Cleveland over the top. After all, they had the best player on the floor to go along with it.
Point being, let's not get carried away with the fact that the Warriors just won a title playing the lineup and style of play that they did. Furthermore, even if you don't buy into what I outlined above, the Warriors still won largely due the defense they were able to play rather than the shooting and smallish matchup problems they created. More importantly, I believe their "style" isn't sustainable --- meaning their "style" won't win them 2, 3, 4 titles.
Historically, franchises don't typically sustain and win multiple titles without one of two things --- or both. A dominant big man or a once in a generation wing player ala Bird, Jordan, Magic, Kobe and LeBron that happens to be the best player in the league at the time. While guys like Steph Curry, Kevin Durant, James Harden, Russell Westbrook, Derrick Rose, Paul George, etc. are all great players, they typically need circumstances to fall just right in order to have a real shot at winning a title. That's why Steve Nash, Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, John Stockton, Mitch Richmond, etc. never won one.
Sometimes a team comes along and bucks that trend, like the Warriors just did, but it's rare and not sustainable. When is the last time it happened? 2011 Dallas, 2008 Boston and 2007 Detroit are candidates, but they all had the best defensive big in the league (at the time) anchoring their defenses. And like this Warriors team, there were unique circumstances that helped them over the top.
In Detroit's case, Shaq and Kobe were going through severe internal strife that visibly affected the Lakers performance. In Dallas' case, it was year 1 for the big 3 who hadn't meshed together quite yet. Boston was an enigma in that they had a really strong starting 5 (kinda like the 2002/3 Kings that nearly, but didn't win). Regardless, of the circumstances, neither team sustained and won another title.
Duncan led teams have won 5 titles.
Shaq led teams have won 4 titles
Kobe led teams have won 2 titles
LeBron led teams have won 2 titles
Point is, the most surefire way to win hasn't changed. What has changed is that there aren't many capable bigs (let alone dominant bigs) around the league these days. But if you have one, you're better off putting your eggs in that basket than trying to follow this small ball trend. The teams that are doing it are doing so out of necessity, not because it's the better way to go.
Does anybody believe this Warriors team would have stood a chance against the 2002 Lakers team the Kings lost to in 7 games? They wouldn't have won a single game.
10 years from now, who would you bet on to have more titles -- Steph Curry or Anthony Davis? Think about it.
I think the Kings are on the right track going big. You just have to have the right bigs. Cousins may not be Shaq or Duncan, but he's closer to either than anyone else in the league right now. And, if WCS works out as Vlade and all Kings fans hope, we just added our Tyson Chandler/Ben Wallace to go along side him.
Yes, 3 point shooting is still very important even if you have a stud big. Just ask the Hakeem Olajuwon led Rockets of the mid-90's and the 2014 Duncan led Spurs. But the %'s of those shots are higher when coming from inside out rather than outside in. That is still and will always be the most efficient way to play. If I'm a GM of a team that has a dominant big, that's how I'm building my team.
That's my take on it, anyway. Feel free to disagree.
