Why is Run N' Gun Unsuccessful in the Playoffs?

[NetsForce]

I call what the Warriors and Suns play "run-and-dumb" not "run-and-gun" =D!

[Phil Jackson]

It's unsuccessful because the teams using it aren't good enough. If the Lakers ran and gunned they would be successful.

[Harry Palmer]

It's unsuccessful because the teams using it aren't good enough.

Speaking of broken clocks, this is actually another point.

Teams that run gimmicky systems usually do so, at least initially, to account for what they don't possess re: talent.

It's somewhat similar to the people you hear saying that the game has changed and centers are no longer as important. People listening to that without a sense of basketball history might not know that people have always been saying that, going back to the 70's...when they themselves lacked one.

And yet, you look back at any era, and you see a dominant interior player on almost all the champs, and you see solid interior play on every one. And if/when that continues to be the case, 50 years from now, you will still be hearing people without a dominant 5 saying that the game has changed, and they don't matter as much, and you will still be seeing some teams without the talent necessary to win try to account for it by virtue of a system that tries to maximize some strengths and mask some weaknesses.

[the southern dandy]

Probably because the intensity and the refs letting more calls go, the game slows down and becomes more physical. Also the pressure must be incredibly intense and run and gun is easier to run in a relaxed state.

[MagiChamps]

-= original quote snipped =-

Yeah, because the Spurs can't win on the road.

Yeah that's what I said.

[_BBIB_]

It's called false attribution

Suns have run into terrible luck with

1)Joe Johnson injury
2)Amare injury
3)Amare suspension


Without any of those and they can advance any one of those years.


Yet there is false attribution to their offense because idiot talking heads want to blame an unorthodox system that's changing the game of basketball

[MagiChamps]

^^great post

[Nebroc]

ROFL it's bad luck to break a known rule and get punished for it even though the rule has been around for a pretty long time now and has always ended in the same result reguardless of circumstance. Yeah, all bad luck... if you concider having stupid players bad luck.

[Harry Palmer]

It's called false attribution

Suns have run into terrible luck with

1)Joe Johnson injury
2)Amare injury
3)Amare suspension


Without any of those and they can advance any one of those years.


Yet there is false attribution to their offense because idiot talking heads want to blame an unorthodox system that's changing the game of basketball

I find it interesting that you are terming the arguments you oppose as logically fallacious while simultaneously making 2 most obvious logical flaws yourself: attributing subjective evaluation as objective fact and failing to offer a standard or norm when suggesting the Suns are abnormal. Possibly if you remove your own flaws, the premise which you supported with them, ie that others are demonstrating a fallacy, might just prove to be groundless?

Maybe I'm just an idiot talking head, though.

[MagiChamps]

ROFL it's bad luck to break a known rule and get punished for it even though the rule has been around for a pretty long time now and has always ended in the same result reguardless of circumstance. Yeah, all bad luck... if you concider having stupid players bad luck.

It's bad luck to have your team leader body checked by an opposing player and then be punished when in the heat of the moment you felt the need to do something about it.

[MagiChamps]

-= original quote snipped =-



I find it interesting that you are terming the arguments you oppose as logically fallacious while simultaneously making 2 most obvious logical flaws yourself: attributing subjective evaluation as objective fact and failing to offer a standard or norm when suggesting the Suns are abnormal. Possibly if you remove your own flaws, the premise which you supported with them, ie that others are demonstrating a fallacy, might just prove to be groundless?

Maybe I'm just an idiot talking head, though.

Are you trying to use big words to make yourself sound smart? It is common practice to express your own opinion as a fact. That's something they teach you in English class-- you don't have to tell the teacher what you are writing is your opinion, the teacher already knows because you are the one who wrote it. Sports analysts do the same thing on TV all the time. I know it's kind of a polite thing that people do on realgm to say IMO just to clarify but it's not absolutely necessary.

[tha_rock220]

It's called false attribution

Suns have run into terrible luck with

1)Joe Johnson injury
2)Amare injury
3)Amare suspension


Without any of those and they can advance any one of those years.


Yet there is false attribution to their offense because idiot talking heads want to blame an unorthodox system that's changing the game of basketball

I fail to see how Joe Johnson not being injured would have made up 3 additional wins for the Suns. The fact is they had no chance at winning that year.

The Heat wouldn't have been denied in 06.

And it isn't like Amare was missing all 6 games against S.A last season. He thought he was going to be a hardcore brutha and get involved and it cost him. Maybe he should have used his brain.

[Harry Palmer]

-= original quote snipped =-



Are you trying to use big words to make yourself sound smart? It is common practice to express your own opinion as a fact. That's something they teach you in English class-- you don't have to tell the teacher what you are writing is your opinion, the teacher already knows because you are the one who wrote it. Sports analysts do the same thing on TV all the time. I know it's kind of a polite thing that people do on realgm to say IMO just to clarify but it's not absolutely necessary.

Thanks for the refresh, rock, I'd missed this before.

A) No, I am not using big words to try and sound smart. I didn't even remember using big words...the person to whom I was responding has raised an argument of logic, and I responded with the diction I am accustomed to using in those circumstances. I find it odd, however, that 2 people used similar terminology, and you only felt the need to criticize the language of the second person, the with whom you apparently disagree.

B) Given that the person was raising logical fallacies as a criticism of another position, I find your position re: opinion as fact to be interesting, telling, but not particularly persuasive. I also don't really agree that that's they teach in English class, at least not in my English classes at university. Unless being asked for an op piece, in either comparative, expository and especially argumentative essays, you are supposed to support your opinion, not leave it hanging naked and assume it's self-evidence.

C) In any event, this wasn't an English class, this was a sports related argument wherein one party raised logic as a flaw. As such, the fact that they did so premised upon a logical flaw, an assumption of fact where none was presented, seemed and still seems to me rather poignant. Sports analysts do so when presenting their opinion...that's their currency, and as such it is assumed that it has some value above and beyond opinion. That fact doesn't make their statements less open to challenge when flawed or unsupported...as we see all the time.

It's been swell chatting, though.

[MagiChamps]

-= original quote snipped =-



1. I fail to see how Joe Johnson not being injured would have made up 3 additional wins for the Suns. The fact is they had no chance at winning that year.

2. The Heat wouldn't have been denied in 06.

3. And it isn't like Amare was missing all 6 games against S.A last season. He thought he was going to be a hardcore brutha and get involved and it cost him. Maybe he should have used his brain.

1. Wouldn't have hurt.

2. How do you know?

3. Whatever

[MagiChamps]

Thanks for the refresh, rock, I'd missed this before.

A) No, I am not using big words to try and sound smart. I didn't even remember using big words...the person to whom I was responding has raised an argument of logic, and I responded with the diction I am accustomed to using in those circumstances. I find it odd, however, that 2 people used similar terminology, and you only felt the need to criticize the language of the second person, the with whom you apparently disagree.

B) Given that the person was raising logical fallacies as a criticism of another position, I find your position re: opinion as fact to be interesting, telling, but not particularly persuasive. I also don't really agree that that's they teach in English class, at least not in my English classes at university. Unless being asked for an op piece, in either comparative, expository and especially argumentative essays, you are supposed to support your opinion, not leave it hanging naked and assume it's self-evidence.

C) In any event, this wasn't an English class, this was a sports related argument wherein one party raised logic as a flaw. As such, the fact that they did so premised upon a logical flaw, an assumption of fact where none was presented, seemed and still seems to me rather poignant. Sports analysts do so when presenting their opinion...that's their currency, and as such it is assumed that it has some value above and beyond opinion. That fact doesn't make their statements less open to challenge when flawed or unsupported...as we see all the time.

It's been swell chatting, though.

A. I don't really think of "false attribution" as being that big of a word. In my mind it is not quite on the level of "logically fallacious," "subjective evaluation," or "premise." I don't know you that well maybe that is how you normally write, at the time though it seemed to me that you were going out of your way to use big words to make the other kid sound dumb. I might have been wrong.

B. I didn't say anything about not supporting your opinion. All I said was that it is not necessary to explicitly state that what you are saying is your opinion, the audience can figure that out on their own. I learned that in school, maybe they don't teach the same thing everywhere, I can't remember whether I learned it in college or high school.

C. I never tried to contend that his opinion was not open to challenge, only that you could not attack him based on the fact that he had not explicitly stated that what he was saying was his opinion. BTW I don't think the word "can" means that they absolutely would have won had the injuries and suspension not occurred.

Nice chatting with you too.

[Ballings7]

Miami would of beat Phoenix in 2006. Miami was bigger, better defensively, more versatile offensively, tougher, more experienced, better coached.

How would Phoenix of stopped Miami on a consistent basis? Shaq, Wade drawing attention and producing in the half-court would of dictated the tempo over the series. Then you have Wade in transition, with the Suns not being a discplined defensive team.

Udonis Haslem + James Posey, I'd say would of been able to defend Diaw well enough. Combined with Shaq and Zo on the interior (like Miami did in containing Dirk over the finals series).

Miami could also go small to run and score with Phoenix.

Phoenix wasn't big enough, weren't experienced enough, weren't deep enough, and weren't flexible enough offensively, to beat Miami's balanced and crafty squad. Missing Amare, likely Kurt Thomas, and a hurting Bell doesn't help matters, either.

1. Wouldn't have hurt.

No, of course not. But they still would of lost the series.

3. Whatever

Whatever is right. That whatever being it was poor decision making.

[MagiChamps]

Miami could also go small to run and score with Phoenix.

Phoenix wasn't big enough, weren't experienced enough, weren't deep enough, and weren't flexible enough offensively, to beat Miami's balanced and crafty squad. Missing Amare, likely Kurt Thomas, and a hurting Bell doesn't help matters, either.

The original point was made assuming the Suns had Amare for that season.

Whatever is right. That whatever being it was poor decision making.

The whatever meant that I have already stated my opinion on the subject.

[_BBIB_]

The point is the Suns could have advanced to the Finals and honestly there is a chance they could have run Shaq/Haslem/Zo/Walker out of the gym

[ljp24]

Refs would've beat the Suns in 06 though

[tha_rock220]

-= original quote snipped =-



1. Wouldn't have hurt.

2. How do you know?

3. Whatever

Yeah, so you don't really have an answer then??? THe Spurs have clearly been superior to the Suns in the playoffs the last 2 years.

I don't know, but it's better than making excuses on why a team lost.