I hate small ball.
[dang], you must really have not liked this team the past few years then.
I love me some small ball, especially because when we play more of a traditional lineup our spacing is bad.
This is the problem with small ball. Small ball is associated with style but in fact small ball is just going small because you can't match up or your bigs are really bad. C's bigs are bad so I accept it as a must right now. Bring in a legit center and more complete PFs and it will be a better game. Look at Spurs vs Warriors. Warriors rely on speed of their youth and great shooting. Once some of those guys get older they won't be the same team. Spurs been going strong for years and will continue to.
The Warriors are an all time good team that plays a lot of small ball. Even San Antonio often plays Kawai at the 4 in a small ball lineup.
I don't agree that playing a more traditional lineup makes San Antonio more likely to have extended success. Their sustained success comes from having some excellent pieces at the top and adding guys that fit with those pieces at the top.
Couldn't you say the same for warriors' short term success?
The idea that San Antonio is not using small ball lineups is baloney. Before getting Aldridge they had lineups featuring 6'8 Boris Diaw at the 5 and 6'7 Leonard at the 4. Before GS they started the trend of positionless basketball predicated on space and pace. The Spurs dont do it all the time, because Pop likes giving teams different looks. Aldridge is a PF playing Center in some of the Spurs smallish lineup.
"Couldn't you say the same for warriors' short term success?" You just buried your own argument. If both the Spurs long term success and GS short term success is predicated on having top end pieces and adding to that, then Traditional lineup has nothing to do with the Spurs' success. In fact, its Pop's ability to adapt that makes the Spurs relevant to this age, along with of course good core and good drafting/hiring.
Topic: 2016 Draft: Small Ball Targets (Read 4345 times)