Why is Run N' Gun Unsuccessful in the Playoffs?
Moderators: bwgood77, zimpy27, infinite11285, Clav, Domejandro, ken6199, bisme37, Dirk, KingDavid, cupcakesnake
Why is Run N' Gun Unsuccessful in the Playoffs?
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 23,617
- And1: 198
- Joined: Jun 29, 2005
- Location: Welcome back the Comeback King !
Why is Run N' Gun Unsuccessful in the Playoffs?
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?
Weren't the showtime Lakers a fast break machine? and they won 5 chips...so how come now it's different?
Dwight Howard on his FT struggles:
"I just think everybody needs to stop talking about it," Howard said. "There's more to life than free throws."
- wilt
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,460
- And1: 147
- Joined: Dec 01, 2003
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
Basically beating fast-paced teams takes a lot of effort, concentration and sticking with a gameplan. And if it

"Toughness is not just hard fouls and being willing to fight people. Toughness is being 10 down and continuing to do what your coach wants you to do."
-
- Forum Mod - Raptors
- Posts: 92,234
- And1: 31,825
- Joined: Oct 14, 2003
-
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.
- b-ball forever
- General Manager
- Posts: 7,737
- And1: 498
- Joined: Mar 17, 2006
- Location: So long Jason Kidd
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
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

-
- RealGM
- Posts: 23,617
- And1: 198
- Joined: Jun 29, 2005
- Location: Welcome back the Comeback King !
^^^^^
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
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

Dwight Howard on his FT struggles:
"I just think everybody needs to stop talking about it," Howard said. "There's more to life than free throws."
Re: Why is Run N' Gun Unsuccessful in the Playoffs?
-
- Bench Warmer
- Posts: 1,367
- And1: 0
- Joined: Feb 03, 2007
Re: Why is Run N' Gun Unsuccessful in the Playoffs?
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.
- b-ball forever
- General Manager
- Posts: 7,737
- And1: 498
- Joined: Mar 17, 2006
- Location: So long Jason Kidd
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.
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.

-
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 4,837
- And1: 0
- Joined: May 24, 2007
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.
-
- Banned User
- Posts: 847
- And1: 0
- Joined: Feb 23, 2008
-
- Junior
- Posts: 264
- And1: 1
- Joined: Feb 05, 2008
- Location: Orlando
[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.
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.
- DubOverdose
- Veteran
- Posts: 2,767
- And1: 18
- Joined: Jul 15, 2004
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.
-
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,831
- And1: 1,001
- Joined: Apr 02, 2006
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.
-
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 4,837
- And1: 0
- Joined: May 24, 2007
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.
-
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,718
- And1: 45
- Joined: May 05, 2007