Do Warriors Have New Blueprint for Winnng?

[Vermont Green]

If you had asked me even a year ago, could a team with an undersized (or at best averaged sized) PG as the best player, and a SG as the only other high level player win a championship, I would have said no.  I can think back to the Isiah Thomas Joe Dumars teams as somewhat similar but the Warriors are really anchored by a PG and an SG.  There is not that much stardom on the rest of the team whereas those Detroit teams were deeper.

This got me thinking about the Celtics and how I somewhat reflectively think we need a dominant wing and solid bigs. As I assess the draft, I tend to value these positions more but this Warriors team is causing me to examine this line of thinking.

Now I know that Marcus Smart and James Young are not Curry and Thompson but no one knew Curry and Thompson would be either.  I actually think Smart could be as productive as Thompson (although in different ways) but Curry is really a unique level of talent.  Are Rubio and Wiggins going to be the next dominant tandem?  I tend to think that the Curry/Thompson duo is kind of a one off; an exception, not the new rule but I wanted to see if this would generate some conversation and opinion.

[Who]

For the last few days, I have been thinking that the Warriors remind me of the early 70s Lakers Championship team.


(1) Explosive shooting / scoring backcourt = Jerry West vs Steph Curry & Gail Goodrich vs Klay Thompson. Steph and Jerry ran the team with top scoring and passing. Goodrich and Klay were high caliber scorers with good secondary ball-handling and playmaking.

(2) Defender / rebounder & passing facilitator at center = Wilt Chamberlain vs Andrew Bogut. Wilt obviously on a different level talent wise but similar style of play at center position.

(3) Glue guy strong versatile quick footed defensive PF = Happy Hairston vs Draymond Green. Hairston more of a rebounder. Green more skilled offensively.

----------------------------------------

One big man who is primarily a facilitator who looks to anchor defense, create extra possessions and generate ball movement on offense. Two top scorers who are lethal shooters in the backcourt who supply majority of the offense and scoring. A quicker PF who does the little things who improves team speed and allows stars to concentrate on what they do best.

The Lakers had a third scorer at SF in Jim McMillan. Harrison Barnes gives GSW some shot-creation at SF to help out star backcourt but not as prolific a scorer. Warriors rely more on team depth without 3rd scorer and had superior depth than 70s Lakers with Iggy, Ezeli, Livingston, Speights, Barbosa and Lee.

[LilRip]

I don't think the Warriors have a new blueprint for winning. Curry is just a special player. I can't think of a player who's been able to replicate what he does on the court. He's like a Ray Allen with better handles and better playmaking.

What the Dubs have been able to do is maximize Curry's talents with complementary talent. As much props as Klay gets, in truth, having Draymond Green, Andre Iguodala, and Bogut on that team is a big deal. Switch those guys out for Brandon Bass, Jae Crowder, and Zeller and you're not looking at a top-seeded team in the West.

It's funny, last offseason, when this board was still discussing Rondo and his ranking in the league as a "top PG", many people were dismissing guys like Curry (and Irving). In hindsight, a lot (if not all) of us would've gladly traded Rondo for Curry now.

[saltlover]

I mean, the blueprint is get Stephen Curry.  He's such a unique player, to be able to shoot the 3 with a combination of accuracy and volume.   Consider that he's third all-time in 3-point percentage, behind his coach (Kerr) and Hubert Davis.  Then also consider that he's made more 3-pointers over just the last three seasons than either of those two made in their entire careers.

On top of that, you have a player who gets a lot of assists despite being an historically great shooter, and yet turns the ball over at a relatively low rate (he does rack up a lot of turnovers because the ball is always in his hand, but for someone that ball dominant, he's pretty safe with it).  His 2-point percentage is great (above 50%) for a perimeter-oriented guard.  And just to add some gravy on to it, he led the league in steals.

The Warriors have done a great job of building around him, to be sure.  But there's no way to copy that blueprint without Stephen Curry, and I find it doubtful you'll find another any time soon.

[Vermont Green]

For the last few days, I have been thinking that the Warriors remind me of the early 70s Lakers Championship team.


(1) Explosive shooting / scoring backcourt = Jerry West vs Steph Curry & Gail Goodrich vs Klay Thompson. Steph and Jerry ran the team with top scoring and passing. Goodrich and Klay were high caliber scorers with good secondary ball-handling and playmaking.

(2) Defender / rebounder & passing facilitator at center = Wilt Chamberlain vs Andrew Bogut. Wilt obviously on a different level talent wise but similar style of play at center position.

(3) Glue guy strong versatile quick footed defensive PF = Happy Hairston vs Draymond Green. Hairston more of a rebounder. Green more skilled offensively.

----------------------------------------

One big man who is primarily a facilitator who looks to anchor defense, create extra possessions and generate ball movement on offense. Two top scorers who are lethal shooters in the backcourt who supply majority of the offense and scoring. A quicker PF who does the little things who improves team speed and allows stars to concentrate on what they do best.

The Lakers had a third scorer at SF in Jim McMillan. Harrison Barnes gives GSW some shot-creation at SF to help out star backcourt but not as prolific a scorer. Warriors rely more on team depth without 3rd scorer and had superior depth than 70s Lakers with Iggy, Ezeli, Livingston, Speights, Barbosa and Lee.

This is a good comparison and goes far enough back that I remember and was watching then, but I don't have total context for all of the players.  I think the West/Curry comparison is particularly apt.  I think the big stretch is comparing Bogut to Wilt.  Even late in his career, Wilt was a dominant player who defenses had to adjust to or game plan around.  No one is game planning around Bogut.  The league was smaller (fewer teams) back then so all teams were deeper than now

[chambers]

They have a top 5 player (some would say top 3) which is the most important part.
They have very solid passing big men and wings that can shoot and defend.

But I think one of the most important part to their success has been the injuries to key players in the West (and East now we are in the finals).

They'll never have a run this easy.
That being said it's not their fault that other teams are injured but it sure as hell has given a great team a better than normal chance at winning it all.

[Yoki_IsTheName]

The Warriors will be very hard to replicate.

Above all else, they have talent on that squad. You got a PG who everyone thought will be a starter at best, and has turned into an MVP. A two two-way wings, with one being capable of exploding at any single game. A PF who not only has heart, but is multi dimensional. And a Center that can protect the paint.

Regardless of how deep their bench is, the key is to have talent, and the Warriors have done a tremendous jib acquiring/drafting them. And then they had a coaching staff that utlizes wining basketball. But above all else, it's talent. If we need to copy their success, we need to be better at evaluating and acquiring talented basketball players. Everything else should come easy once the core of players are laid in.

[wayupnorth]

If you had asked me even a year ago, could a team with an undersized (or at best averaged sized) PG as the best player, and a SG as the only other high level player win a championship, I would have said no.  I can think back to the Isiah Thomas Joe Dumars teams as somewhat similar but the Warriors are really anchored by a PG and an SG.  There is not that much stardom on the rest of the team whereas those Detroit teams were deeper.

This got me thinking about the Celtics and how I somewhat reflectively think we need a dominant wing and solid bigs. As I assess the draft, I tend to value these positions more but this Warriors team is causing me to examine this line of thinking.

Now I know that Marcus Smart and James Young are not Curry and Thompson but no one knew Curry and Thompson would be either.  I actually think Smart could be as productive as Thompson (although in different ways) but Curry is really a unique level of talent.  Are Rubio and Wiggins going to be the next dominant tandem?  I tend to think that the Curry/Thompson duo is kind of a one off; an exception, not the new rule but I wanted to see if this would generate some conversation and opinion.

Interesting premise, but I lost you when you said Curry and Thompson are their only high level players. Green is a force and is more important to that team than klay is.

Also the warrior s are crazy deep.

[GetLucky]

There is always a "new blueprint" whenever a team learns how to build around their best player and extract the team's fullest potential. It's important not to get caught up in recreating teams because what works for them probably doesn't work for the players on another team.

[MBunge]

The Warrior blueprint is, essentially, "have a lot of really, really good players."

Mike

[GreenWarrior]

I don't think it's a "new blueprint". in fact it's about as old a "blueprint" as you can get - draft players and have them pan out.

[Grindfather]

The second most important Warrior is not Klay Thompson, it's Draymond. Everyone talks about how good their offense is, but they also had the best defense in the league, Draymond makes that possible.
In a way they are the new blueprint in that the league is moving toward the model of having a bunch of versatile 6'7" guys that can shoot and switch on D. The Warriors have a leg up because of Curry's gravity as a shooter and the fact they got Draymond so late in the draft.

[Who]

I also think the makeup Warriors team is very similar like Bogut's Milwaukee teams.

- One center who anchors defense and acts as facilitator on offense
- versatile defensive minded quick footed combo forward in Mbah a Moute
- two wings with good size (Salmons, Delfino). One who can score (Salmons). Both wings have good size and are able to switch defensively with PF (Mbah a Moute).
- offensive minded PG who can create for himself and others (Jennings).

Golden State are obviously a much more talented version of that team. Superior individual pieces and vastly superior overall team ... but similar ideology to composition of team.

Especially in order to make best use of Andrew Bogut who's role has been priority this season for GSW vs last season when David Lee was the priority and Bogut forced to adapt to fit in and was far less involved on offense and consequently GSW's offense was more packed in and easier to defend against. Instead, they went back to when Bogut had his best year and picked a similar type of makeup to their own team (helped by Draymond Green's improved jump-shot which kept holding him back from playing big minutes in the past).

Basically one PG, one C and three forwards - one more of a SG/SF, the other more of a PF/SF and the other a true SF.

Prioritizing defensive quickness over size / power / physical intimidation type defense.

And getting more quickness, ball-handling and cutting on the floor offensively (or shooting when Milwaukee brought Ilyasova in at PF). Only one big man in paint to open up floor for others. Important that that big man is a plus passer who can facilitate offense.

[LarBrd33]

It's an old blueprint.  A tale as old as time.  Here's how I wrote it in another thread:

Step 1:  Get an MVP-caliber elite scorer

Step 2:  Get an elite defensive big man (preferably one who is 7 feet tall and makes the all-defense team)

Step 3:  Fill out the roster with lots of top-tier starters and so much depth that you can leave an all-star big man rotting on the bench.

Step 4:   Instant Contender