I find it absolutely hysterical that when you consider the opinions of human beings in this country including fans,owners,GM's,Head coaches,current NBA players, former NBA players,basketball people, scouts, and media types that the only people that believe in small ball/run n gun/Dfensless basketball are Mike D'Antoni,Don Nelson,a few of their disciples, and a small misguided mob of SUNS fans.
I mean....ya'll can use faceplants,knee injuries, Tim Duncan's rogue 3-pointer,and suspensions as excuses.....but nobody outside of Phoenix cares about any of that. How do cliches become cliches? How do some stereotypes become stereotypes?Defense wins championships. It's not rocket science unless you're Mike D'Antoni who'd love to prove the other 99% of the basketball world wrong.
Good riddance.
statistically speaking, only one of the last ten championships was won w/out shaq or Tim Duncan. (And shaqs 2001 team was mid NBA(15th) defensively). So is it that you need defense to win or that you need a very dominant big man(amare need not apply) who can anchor the middle. It used to be in the 80's that you couldnt win if you had 2 defensive role players in your starting lineup. Times have changed meet the spurs. Times changed as the rules change and in the 90's more physicality on defense was permitted without calls. As in this decade, when the hand check rule was written and sometimes applied. As rules change the winning strategy will change. The success of flopping in the NBA has led to a new generation of floppers int he NBA. Flopping would get you beat in the 80's.
Its funny how sport changes and people resist the change. In football it used to be you cant win without a dominant running game, then the 46 defense cam along and shut out the run. Then the west coast offense(not dependent on a great running back) burned the 46. Defenses and strategies change and evolve with rule changes.
So DA took a 29 win team and averaged 57 wins for 4 years but didnt win against Tim Duncan and the spurs with their 3 all stars. Is it that Duncan was just the best big in the game, surely the best defensive teams fell to the spurs, with perhaps the offensive minded mavs being the only team to beat them in the WC playoffs recently. Sometimes you can weave any story that you want and fit the data to it, its self prophecy.
It used to be you needed good pitching to win in baseball, but that was disproven a few times(cincinatti reds, 74,75) as well. Absolutes in sport are not enduring, they will fall. In the first four years of its existence how was the triangle offense working? Any championships at that time? Some types like todays suns fans would probably have opined: "its too complicated, it'll never work in the NBA with these players". Malone and stockton never won a championship, neither has sloan. Does this mean that sloan will never win with his system? There is a much larger body of data that says sloan will never win with his style, than DA with SSOL, 19 years worth compared with 5.
Its also funny how players say the system is the issue and not the players. Would the tex winter/PJ triangle win a championship in the 90's without even just scotty Pippen( no way). Personnel plus the system equals the potential output of a team.
It sure is possible that any starting 5 the suns will field that has amare and nash on it cannot defend well enough to win a title, but what does that say about SSOL? I am willing to bet that the atlanta hawks, as currently constituted plus DJ augustin could win an NBA championship using SSOL in two to three years. They are young athletic and skilled as a team. They have much better defensive skills at every position than the suns. Watching them play against the celtics, its not too hard to imagine with a more efficient offense and their current defense that they could win.