RealGM

I don't really get it. I know less possessions makes each one more important, but it's very successful in the regular season but it seems they never get the job done in the post season.

Weren't the showtime Lakers a fast break machine? and they won 5 chips...so how come now it's different?

Lakers had Magic-KAJ-Worthy

Magic >>>>>>>>>>>>>Nash
KAJ>>>>>>>>Amare
Worthy>>>>>>>>>Marion
Riley>>>>>>>Pringles

I think it's as simple as that...

ask phx and denver

it is not the run n gun that is unsuccessful but the small ball..lakers did it in the 80s and spurs did it against suns in 2005..

The question is answered better/easier when you look at it from the other angle.
Basically beating fast-paced teams takes a lot of effort, concentration and sticking with a gameplan. And if it

Pace tends to slow down in the playoffs. So a team that is completely high-tempo-oriented and not really capable of playing a consistently good half-court game will not be as strong as they were in the regular season (at least as the playoffs progress and the opponents get tougher).

durden-tyler wrote:Lakers had Magic-KAJ-Worthy

Magic >>>>>>>>>>>>>Nash
KAJ>>>>>>>>Amare
Worthy>>>>>>>>>Marion
Riley>>>>>>>Pringles

I think it's as simple as that...

The Lakers didn't actually run; they weren't usually the fastest team in the league. They were fast, sure, but they were usually more like top-10 rather than top-2. The years they won titles in the 80s, the Lakers were 8th, 4th, 8th, 10th and 11th in the league in pace.

The thing about the Lakers is that they had solid defense, great rebounding and they had half-court weapons that were very well-organized.

They had Kareem and Magic, then also James Worthy and a host of guys who could hit jumpers from all over the place (like McAdoo, Jamaal Wilkes, etc)...

And in the playoffs, they ran when they could but they generally were capable of picking you apart in the halfcourt at their leisure because of their inside out game and the combination of their off-ball movement and their passing.

It's a lot different than run-and-gun.

Run N Gun isn't unsuccesfull in the playoffs

2005 :

Suns are the upset team of the year and reach the WCF, which they lose against SanAN... who are running and gunning in the series.
No run n gun unsuccess.

2006 :

-Suns make WCF again despite Amare bein injured the whole season, and missin Kurt Thomas for the 2nd half of the season (and the playoffs). They only lose 6-2 against Dallas in the WCF, with Raja Bell out for that series as well.
Still no run n gun unsuccess

2007 :

-Suns are BY FAR the closest team to SanAN in the in the playoffs, the only team that cuda beat them. Maybe wuda even won if weren't for controversial suspensions and Donaghy reffing, but meh...
2nd best team in the playoffs, 2nd best team in the reg season. Suns weren't unsuccesfull, the Mavs were!

Denver runs, and loses against SanAN.
But that has nothin at all to do with their style of play, Spurs are just the better team.

8th seeded GSW (fastest/smallest team in the NBA) pull off the biggest upset in NBA playoffs history by pwnin the 1st seeded Mavs in the first round!


So saying that run n gun isn't successfull in the playoffs is absolute bullcrap

^^^^^

I define success by winning it all, not almost getting there

but obviously the definition is open to interpretation, so if you think it's successful then

magicfan4life05 wrote:I don't really get it. I know less possessions makes each one more important, but it's very successful in the regular season but it seems they never get the job done in the post season.

Weren't the showtime Lakers a fast break machine? and they won 5 chips...so how come now it's different?

There arent many good run and gun teams.

Run and gun is fine just as good as anything else when you have the talent to do it. And no fundamental flaws elsewhere. It just so happens that each of the run and gun teams in recent history either sucked on defense or couldnt grab a rebound when it matters.

There are 16 teams in the playoffs, so there isn't just 1 successfull team in the playoffs and 15 unsuccessfull teams. Not to mention just even making the playoffs is considered a success by some teams fans...

A team's success depends on well they were expected to do.

GSW makin the 2nd round last year was a HUGE success given that they took out the top seed.
Suns didn't win the c-ship, but they still made the WCF in 2005, even tho nobody thought they wud at the start of the 2004-2005 season.
At the start of the 2005-2006 season again nobody thinks they're gonna go that far since they trade Joe Johnson and lose Amare (some peeps even think they won't make the playoffs!), but they make the WCF again, even with 2 key players out with injuries during the post-season!
Those 2 post-seasons were def successfull performances.
Last year Suns were among the favorites for title with SanAN and Dallas. They become the 2nd best team in the NBA playoffs, which isn't an unsuccessfull post-season performance either given how well they played.
Dallas and Detroit were the unsuccessfull teams that year, and both em don't run and gun at all.

Out of 30 teams how many have been run and gun on average? 3 a year? That means that if all things averaged out you'd have a 10% chance of a RnG team winning it all. Those teams play the way they do largely because of personnel. Since they don't have a dominant center like Tim Duncan or Shaq, they try to get high percentage shots by playing smaller guys. Since they don't have Shaq or Duncan, they are usually not going to win anyway.

Current run n gun teams
1. Phoenix Suns
2. Golden State Warriors
3. Philadelphia 76ers

[quote="b-ball forever"][/quote]

Agreed. People want to tear the Suns and their run n gun apart like they were never even capable of winning a championship. I don't get that because last year they had the advantage in the Spurs series and in all likelihood could have won if not for body check Bob and the suspensions. IMO Suns were the better team and they got screwed.

playjredz wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Agreed. People want to tear the Suns and their run n gun apart like they were never even capable of winning a championship. I don't get that because last year they had the advantage in the Spurs series and in all likelihood could have won if not for body check Bob and the suspensions. IMO Suns were the better team and they got screwed.

Spurs were the better team and won the series. The Suns have more talent, but team wise, Spurs were tops.

b-ball forever wrote:2006 :

-Suns make WCF again despite Amare bein injured the whole season, and missin Kurt Thomas for the 2nd half of the season (and the playoffs). They only lose 6-2 against Dallas in the WCF, with Raja Bell out for that series as well.
Still no run n gun unsuccess

Trying to rewrite history? Raja played 4 of 6 games vs Dallas!! Thats not out for the series! And since when is there a 11 game series?
Maybe its not clever to play the injury card, your starters avged close to 40 mpg, only using a 7 player rotation. Combine that with run-n-gun and injuries are no surprise in a very long season imo.

The reason PHX got to the wcf was the seeding in the nba, Dallas and San Antonio had the two best records in the West but met already in the semis because of the same division. PHX was not the second best team in the west (that would be the normal implication from wcf) and barely made their way to the wcf against lower seeds.
---
There is a correlation between team success and system. On the upper side it is crazy how quickly players can fit in that system and be productive alongside Nash, 2006 its Diaw and Tim Thomas (contract year) who stick out. Both players coming out of nowhere. On the downside using your starters 40 mpg - using subsequently no bench - the system will wear your players down and that will result in injuries. Injuries are no excuse for no success of the system, its just the consequence.

I agree when you look at the PHX Playoff history of the last three years and say that there was no unsuccess. It doesnt mean it was a success, its sth in between - the outcome is/was expected.

DubOverdose wrote:-= original quote snipped =-


Spurs were the better team and won the series. The Suns have more talent, but team wise, Spurs were tops.

Thats the thing, I don't even know if the Suns do have more talent. I don't know if they had more "talent" than the Utah team that didn't run or gun but couldn't put up half the fight the Suns did.

Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili, and Tony Parker are as formidable a trio as exists in the league. Add to that the fact that the Spurs were deeper and a good matchup at key positions and I don't think you can say the Suns did any worse than they should of, especially considering the suspensions+questionable calls.

Why could the Lakers do it?

Simple - Kareem Aldu-Jabbar (post presence)

it's successful, you only need to play the mavs in the first round.

Phoenix Mercury was able to win the title last season, so I wouldn't count run a gun out.