Is Shaq to PHX the defeat of Run N Gun?

[Rerisen]

To me it's not really an issue of "run 'n' gun". If you took a look at the Pace factor list for NBA teams this season, what you will realize is that pace has no correlation whatsoever with your success as a team or in the playoffs.

Yes, but pace is alone not the end all definition of run and gun style. At least not to me, its not just about how fast you get up a shot, but how you score. I think people kind of missed that angle of my post, relating to the importance of a dominant interior presence. So maybe I phrased the thread badly.

For example, someone stated that Toronto is not a run and gun team because of pace. Well T.J Ford has been out for one thing, and he can really push it. But beyond that, drafting a player like Bargnani, obviously not a post player at all, and then signing Kapono, getting Delfino, suggests Colangelo was very much convinced to keep going in the direction of the euro style ball of rapid ball movement and outside shooting.

I don't know I find Toronto a interesting team. They obviously already have a great big in Bosh, but there was almost a feeling from a portion of the fanbase that he was not the answer long term and that the team should continue moving away from a Bosh centered team to eventually a Bargnani centered one, who the eventual hope was to become a Dirk like player. He has somewhat struggled this year so that is out the window now. But this kind of attitude represents a example of what I was talking about that there was this feeling of a shift away from traditionally built teams.

This is sort of veering off topic, but if you look at the 06 Finals I think you can make the case that Dwayane Wade approximated the role of a 'big' far better than Dirk Nowitzki. He attacked the paint relentlessly for easy baskets and obviously drew a ton of fouls and FTA (40+ more than Dirk). When games bog down like that in the playoffs, these teams that rely on quick ball movment, and outmaneuvering you for open shots don't seem to fair as well.

[PrecociousNeoph]

-= original quote snipped =-



First I don't know how much D'Antoni is happy about this trade.

Second: after seeing "old-school" teams like Bulls, Heat, 76ers or Knicks struggling, I could be more happy to prefer modern basketball ala Toronto, GS or PHX.

wow, do you truly believe there is a parellel between the glory days and the present for those teams? how are they "old school"? those teams are nothing now like they were in their glory days whatsoever. you're talking like the game is taking a radical new direction, yet look at champions in the past 10-20 years. what is the ratio between teams that had the ability to defend and score in the half court, and those that didn't? how many of those teams did not have a dominant big guy to run through? Detroit you could say was like that, but rasheed wallace at times gave them a needed inside presence, and do you think they win without him?

[Ballings7]

Yea, how many titles won in the last years the "old-stylers" Jazz, Knicks, Blazers, 76ers etc ?

Why do you keep mentioning these kind of teams? Their situations except for the Jazz and Blazers have been poor-mediocre at best for awhile now.

The Blazers are just coming on, and will only get better and better in the future. Especially with Oden back next year. It's not fair to mention them yet within title talk, but will be down the line.

The Jazz just got it together again last season, and just are missing an interior big man shot-alterer. To get that much better.

Why not mention the Heat, Pistons, Lakers, Spurs? They're traditional-style teams and have won the titles this decade.

It doesn't make sense not to mention those above teams, rather than the teams like you've mentioned multiple times in the thread.

Also, there's no such thing as old-style, old-school, new-school, new-style. It's traditional or non-traditional.

If it was old and new-style, why have the have traditional-style teams typically won champioships? Because that's what is legit and what is required to be most successful.

Run n' gun, speed 'ball, up-tempo, small 'ball, offensive-minded, etc. kind of basketball has been around for a long time, before the Suns, Warriors, Nuggets. It just matters what else you had in your team, to dictate how successful you'd be playing that way. Like with the more half-court kind of teams, it varies in success.

Did you saw the change between Orlando Magic 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 with Lewis at PF dropping 3s ?

While the Magic have been better with Lewis at PF, they're rebounding and interior defense is lacking outside of Dwight. That's not going to fare well for them in the playoffs, and that weakness has shown up already several times during the regular season (more than I thought it would). You can't expect to do that well in the playoffs with just one significant rebounder and defender.

Eventually Lewis will move back to SF, and a helper, true big man will play next to Dwight at PF. To help him with defense and rebounding. Foyle doesn't play enough to do that, and isn't a PF or starter really, anyway. Asking Dwight to basically defend and rebound all on his own is too much to ask, and is unfair to him past this season.

I think they should make a move for another defender/rebounder if Battie won't be back in time.

BTW, Lewis would probably be playing his natural SF position, if Tony Battie wasn't out.

[Rerisen]

Someone mentioned The Houston Rockets championship teams as a fast pace squad. Now it's been 13 years or so since I watched those finals, but outside of some Clyde the Glyde fast break dunks, what I remember from them is Hakeem being unstoppable in the post and kicking it out in the half court to Kenny Smith, Elie, Horry, etc who were bombing three pointers. The year before (without Clyde), the scores for the Finals were dreadfully low. I don't remember much run and gun.

So I wouldn't call Houston a Run and Gun team. So to the extent that with this trade Phoenix is trying to become more like those Rockets than they are like the Suns of the last few years, that is what makes sense to me.