While I personally much prefer the "2014 Spurs" style of play, I don't think basketball is ruined, and even if it is I don't think it's the Warriors' fault. I'd bet that 80% of teams in the NBA would run a system similar to Golden State if they had the personnel to be successful with it. I also wouldn't call the Warriors a team that "shoots only 3-ptrs", even though they take a lot of them. If I had players like Steph and Klay on my team then I sure as hell would want them tossing up a ton of threes. Good teams and coaches maximize the strengths of their players. I think some people need to keep in mind that the NBA is trying to expand its marketing reach and appeal more and more to the casual fan. People tend to like lots of scoring. And the rules have been tweaked to try and accommodate that, even if it's to the chagrin of some old-school basketball purists.
I agree that a team without Curry+Thompson would not enjoy the same success playing the same way that GSW does. These guys would often kill opponents taking a ton of contested 3s, and even 3s from 30 feet out. That said, this doesn't mean that the 3 pointer shouldn't be a tool that every team makes use of even if they don't have the Curry/Thompson level shooters. Having even above average to average 3 point shooter out there helps create space for your other offensive player to operate and create dribble penetrations, layups and FT opportunities. The D'Antoni Suns, for example, didn't have quite the level of elite shooters that the Warriors had (the only one is really Nash, and he didn't bomb away like the Splash Brothers do). They were still successful offensively because guys like Marion, Joe Johnson, QRich, Raja Bell, Diaw allowed Nash to play his drive and dish game and Amare to get a bunch of easy rim opportunities.
There is a little bit of post play still in the league, and yes the Warriors have a lot more nuanced offense than just to shoot 25 footers. I'm just concerned that things are going to become a lot more extreme. Memphis and Charlotte have given up on the inside-out game. Philly considered it and realized it was doomed. 3pt shooting is a skill that many players have realized they can improve at. Curry is one-of-a-kind, but Klay is just a really good shooter who figured out how to focus. He's a bigger, more athletic Steve Kerr. I expect to see the league filled with players who can shoot like Klay in 5 years. The NBA will probably look like the RGV Vipers games. Maybe that's a good thing. Again, it's a matter of taste.
You underestimate Klay and what it takes to have his shot, which is special... His release is as quick as Curry's. He just won't shoot off the dribble like Curry does with the handles.
I'm starting to come around to what you are thinking If the prototype of the league is now Steph Curry (who I still think is a great player), then we would have never seen the likes of a Michael Jordan Larry Bird Dr. J Magic Johnson Abdul-Jabar or Hakeem "The Dream" Olajuwan ....and many other greats If that is the case, then the NBA is going to turn into where most games are simply 3 point shooting contest and I just dont know about that
19.2 million people saw game 1. It was the highest rated opening game ever. Warriors brand of basketball and 3 pointers in general is where the money is.
It's become more like volleyball, a sport where teamwork is more important than the biggest hitter, but you still have 1 or 2 go-to players when you're in trouble. It's a faster, higher IQ game than it used to be. That's good. I'd just like to see more variety in styles of play.
The problem with guarding Steph & Klay is the other personnel destroys you. But you give those guys any space and it's over either way.
Ill be honest, i kind of didn't want gsw losing to okc in the beginnning of the series just because they are the most fun team to watch in a long time.
Joe Johnson did shoot an insane 48% with 4.5 attempts from 3. It goes to show how contagious shooting is. Draymond for example is not a pure shooter, but he managed to hit 38% on 3 attempts. Crazy after starting his first 3 years for an average 33%...Barnes shot 38% and 40% last year. Seeing guys like Klay and Curry shoot so easily rubs off on their teammates. They probably also teach them a thing or two..
If you replace Steph and Klay with two one dimensional shooters they would not have the same level of success that they did and would have lost to OKC. I think it is unfair to dismiss the possibility of either of them being big hitters with significant impact. Klay is a top 2 SG and Curry is a top 2 PG for reasons other than their shooting (although greatly helped by it).
fact is gsw management drafted well and now theyre getting rewarded for their success. they cant afford to put together a roster like this by buying it. where's royce white now?
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I am saying that Steph and Klay are the big hitters. I think we're agreeing on that. Steph is great, so I think this is more a discussion about Klay. He's very impressive, but his +/- numbers are nowhere near Curry's. As good as he is, there have actually been a lot of players with Klay's skill set in the past, which are mainly: superb shooter, ultraquick release, good catch and shoot, high IQ, BUT not a 1v1 player. Here are some examples -- Ray Allen, Reggie Miller, Dale Ellis, Joe Dumars, and (next tier) Steve Kerr, Kyle Korver. That's good company, but he's not unique. That's why I think he (though not Curry) can be replicated.
If we are just talking about shooting, then Klay may simply be one of these once-in-a-decade shooters that you listed. But, the thing with Klay is that not only is he ridiculously explosive offensively, but he is a borderline elite defender, who is usually given the toughest defensive assignment (in terms of perimeter players).
How has this changed the game? The idea of a good shooter forcing a defender to overcommit and allow a drive-by has always been part of the game.
Styles of play are trends and cycles. I'd compare what the Warriors are doing to, coincidentally, what the 49ers did in the 1980s, when Walsh's West Coast Offense dominated the decade. Teams began to copycat it and I remember people saying almost exactly what you're saying...that team and scheme is more important than the superstars and it's higher IQ but less grind-it-out (which I'd compare to you feeling the post game is disappearing) and that there needs to be more diversity. But everyone doesn't run the WCO these days. In fact, almost no one runs a pure 1980s Walsh WCO. The concepts of the WCO were integrated every team's playbooks and the general fabric of offensive football, but people built new systems that had some basis in the WCO but also basis in other things. Even WCO adherents like Mike Shanahan build their version around the power running game, something that was supposedly being phased out. I think the same will happen here. Yes, the three-point barrage and constant motion offense is the current rage and it's not merely a fad...but every team from no one won't look like the Warriors. Teams will take some of what the Warriors do and build systems that make sense for their personnel. The Warriors have shown, forever, that the three-pointer needs to be a staple in any team's offense, but that's not much different from timing passes needing to be a staple in any football team's offense. You can still put together endless systems incorporating that, including with a post-up giant, and teams will.
I actually think the Spurs 2014 play was more impressive and beautiful to watch. Golden State achieves something similar, but it's more a product of their better shooting whereas the Spurs were from crisper passing. Unfortunately, the Spurs couldn't sustain that style with their major players aging. By adding LMA, they've become the old Spurs because LMA plays similarly to Tim Duncan.
I think the 2014 Spurs were more machine-line with their passing, while the Warriors are more dynamic...more likely to turn it over but also more likely to make wow-plays. More behind-the-back pass, no-look passes, lobs, baseball passes from one end of the court to the other, etc. It kindof depends on what you consider the more beautiful and/or entertaining team to watch: the Showtime Lakers or the 2014 Spurs. I think the Warriors are more the Showtime Lakers.
