If you're the GSW, what means more to you: NBA Title or All-Time Best Record?

[Fafnir]

They want both, and they'll go for both.

The ring means more, though.  The best record, but losing in the playoffs, makes you a huge failure, akin to the 2007 Patriots.  Nobody wants to be remembered as a great regular season team that couldn't get it done when it mattered.

Agreeing with the chorus.

Being labeled a failure for a great season of contending sucks, and that's what getting 73 wins but losing in the playoffs would be.

[pearljammer10]

They want both, and they'll go for both.

The ring means more, though.  The best record, but losing in the playoffs, makes you a huge failure, akin to the 2007 Patriots.  Nobody wants to be remembered as a great regular season team that couldn't get it done when it mattered.

Couldn't agree more. The ring is always more important.

[mgent]

For example, do they rest their starters down the stretch, or do they keep them playing to beat the record?

Ring is more important, but they're going to keep playing their players.

It's in their best interest to beat the record, because that will give them more momentum and more motivation.

Resting starters and/or key players down the stretch would do the opposite (kill momentum).

They want to go into the playoffs on a streak of wins and playing how they usually play, with the usual guys playing normally (minutes/intensity).

[libermaniac]

Why don't you ask the Patriots who went 16-0 and lost in the Super Bowl? ;-)

[wiley]

Ask Charles Barkley, Chris Webber, John Stockton and Karl Malone whether they'd rather have been on a team that had the best regular season record ever (which they'd have to remind people of constantly), or whether they'd like to wear their ring when they're out to dinner...

Edit:  Malone didn't get a ring with the Lakers did he?

Edit:  regarding OP making it specific to these Warriors, who already have a  ring, I'd still stay they'd prefer a second ring...more rings the better.

[PhoSita]

In the long run, I think beating the Bulls regular season record will have more historical significance than a second Warriors title run.

However, if the Warriors win 73+ games and then fail to win the title, I think it'll be looked at the same way the Pats' 2007 season is looked at.  An amazing regular season, but a disappointment because the team fell short of proving they were the best in the league that season in the most important game of the year.

Basically, I think I'd care more about getting the regular season record, but if you fail to win the title after getting that record, it was all a waste.

If the Warriors really want to think about making a mark on history, they should get to thinking about what it would take for them to win 4 titles in a row.  A team hasn't done that since before the merger.