oreon wrote:harlem_ball wrote:oreon wrote:Small ball doesn't win ? Lakers exclusively went small in the finals. Go back and check the per min numbers, Dwight played only 11 mins per game and mostly when AD was off the floor. And GSW won playing small. Even last year if one of Harden or Irving was healthy the Nets would have beat Bucks. Durant almost did it by himself.
And yeah those teams had all time HOF players. But this is how this works. Talent wins most of the time regardless of style. On occasion you got teams that win based on coaching and good chemistry like Dallas and Spurs recently. .
I know when we loose, people are gonna be on the small ball thing again. But if we loose it will be because the other team has Giannis, Embiid or Durant and we don't. It can't be when small ball wins its talent and when going big wins it's the system.
Cmon, man. AD and Durant are 6'10 and 7 ft by themselves. Bigger than Heat lineups.
I will give you AD but not KD. Size helps but KD is not really a true big. You can't argue as a rebounder or rim protector that KD is better than Bam. And Bam has shown the ability to play bigger than he actually is. So Nets without a big who is defensively as good as Bam almost beat Bucks
And even going back to the Lakers Heat series. We took them to 6 while Bam and Dragic were hurt and Lakers were healthy. And lot of people here would agree if healthy Heat would have won.
Size isn't everything. The are two places were small ball hurts. One against an elite low post player and two against an elite rebounding team. Currently there are only 2 bigs who Bam would trouble against down low, and that's Embiid or Jokic. In a sixers series, going small could hurt us. I'd assume for that series, Spo would mix up between small ball& going big. And were likely not to face Denver in finals this year. For everyone else, I think we would be fine playing small ball.
Size is size and demands attention and creates mismatches. The Nets haven't won anything. Durant is 7 feet. That ends your argument.
