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

[jpotter33]

I think this should provoke a pretty interesting discussion, and it has many practical implications for how Golden State plays the rest of the season. For example, do they rest their starters down the stretch, or do they keep them playing to beat the record?

Many people would say that it's an easy choice - an NBA Title repeat. I, on the other hand, think having the All-Time Best Record is something that would dwarf a single NBA title. What is one NBA Title compared to the bragging rights of saying you had the All-Time best regular season team?

I actually think this is a problem that the NBA should look to improve upon. With only one winner each year and only three to four "real" contenders for that crown every year, it seems like the NBA could benefit from some other type of incentive or goal for teams to strive for. For example, there are some types of these incentives and goals, such as division title, conference champions, scoring champ, etc. But they're not really all that valued in today's NBA. I think something like a mid-season tournament broken down into differing sections/divisions of the country would be a cool idea to add some more competition and goals to strive for throughout the long season. For example, each month of the season could host a divisional tournament, and that would give the non-contender teams something to actually shoot for.

[Roy H.]

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.

[Who]

Best record means nothing without a ring.

Title.

[thirstyboots18]

Without a few  rings,  they can't be considered "the all time best"...after that, they can be included in the discussion.

[SparzWizard]

Since the Warriors only have 12-13 championships less than the Lakers and Celtics respectively, I think an all-time best record would mean something.

Surpassing the 95-96 Bulls would be an exceptional accomplishment.

[GreenFaith1819]

Coming from THIS guy:




I'd say go for the banner.

[Donoghus]

Title.

All-time record doesn't mean squat if you don't have the ring. Not having the title will overshadow everything else.

[jpotter33]

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.

But they've already shown that they can get it done when it mattered by winning it last year. It's essentially the exact same team as last year, minus David Lee, so it's not like they're OKC trying to break the record without ever winning it all. I still think there would be glory and honor in being the best regular season team of all time, even if it came at the expense of the title this year.

[Bucketgetter]

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.

But they've already shown that can get it done when it mattered by winning it last year. It's essentially the exact same team as last year, minus David Lee, so it's not like they're OKC trying to break the record without ever winning it all. I still think there would be glory and honor in being the best regular season team of all time, even if it came at the expense of the title this year.

I would let Cleveland beat the record if it meant that we were able to beat them in the playoffs.

[Celtics17]

To say you had the all time regular season best record but were unable, with a healthy team, to win it all would have to be an embarrassment. It would be like saying 'we are the best all time but, oh yeah, we were second best that year'. Not that second best would be a bad thing but the two don't mix well.

[Roy H.]

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.

But they've already shown that they can get it done when it mattered by winning it last year. It's essentially the exact same team as last year, minus David Lee, so it's not like they're OKC trying to break the record without ever winning it all. I still think there would be glory and honor in being the best regular season team of all time, even if it came at the expense of the title this year.

Again, though, ask anybody associated with the 2007 Patriots which they'd prefer.  The perfect regular season -- the only 16-0 regular season record in NFL history -- is a symbol of failure more than it is success.

[Moranis]

winning 73 or more games doesn't matter if they don't win the title.

[Granath]

You've done nothing if you don't win the title.

Boston fans in particular should understand that (18-1).

[DefenseWinsChamps]

Like the Patriots from a few years ago, if they have a great regular season but lose the title, there will be an asterisk. Asterisks taint legacies. The Warriors will forever be remembered as the team that had an amazing 11 month run of a championship and then regular season, but couldn't cement themselves as an all-time great.

[slamtheking]

Many people would say that it's an easy choice - an NBA Title repeat. I, on the other hand, think having the All-Time Best Record is something that would dwarf a single NBA title. What is one NBA Title compared to the bragging rights of saying you had the All-Time best regular season team?

I think winning the title generates far more bragging rights than having the best record for a season and coming up short in the end.  that's more embarrassing that brag-worthy. 

not sure why this would be all that debatable.  should have added a poll so you could see that very point.