The Economist's PHX v. GS

The talking heads have been calling Golden State the new Phoenix. High-velocity offenses, and buckets of points on the scoreboard are what they share ostensibly. Both attacks love to get shots up quickly, and utilize floor spacing to predicate their attack (forget Shaq for a moment). But as Thursday night’s game illustrated, a strong dichotomy exists between these two offensive juggernauts. One with laden with metaphors that run as deep as the binary between American and international socio-cultural paradigms.

Indeed, both teams love scoring points in bunches. But Mike Dantoni’s philosophy represents an international model for success, based on the collective sharing of resources (most significantly, Mr. Nash) where opportunities stem from the dynamic between players. It’s not that the model doesn’t foster the development of individual stars (Amare Stodamire’s development as a superstar is evidence), but the star is born inside an interconnectivity between the individual and the whole. Each player’s individual strengths and weaknesses facilitate the strengths and weaknesses of other players on the floor.

Golden State’s model echoes a predominantly American paradigm for success. The cultural emphasis on individuality reigns supreme in Don Nelson’s system, where the number one rule is quite literally, shoot. In a way, it’s the ultimate realization of 90’s era drive and kick basketball. Except in this case, there are 4 to 5 potential drivers/kickers on the floor at any given time—and the green light to shoot at any given point in a possession is taken to video-game extremes. You are the player you chose to become, and you are the only player capable of making that destiny occur.

At some level, it’s an example of pure, market-driven capitalism. In the Golden State economy, it’s in the best interest of the whole for the individual parts to think and act as if they were the most important element of the whole. Adam Smith realized.

To contrast that, the Phoenix economy is a carefully planned, balance between the individual and the whole. It has one central body (Steve Nash) who controls the flow of goods and services (the basketball) to the rest of the community. But to make a comparison to a Marxist state would be incorrect, with players like Mr. Stodamire being more significant contributors to the whole than other parts, a Boris Diaw for example. Phoenix represents a hybrid between pure market, and socialist ideals. It’s fitting for a team founded primarily on players from all around the world, including their coach who played professionally in Italy.

But can any of these archetypal realizations explain each team’s lack of legitimate title-contention?

In the case of Golden State, their defensive philosophy starkly contrasts their offensive one. It’s based on helping, hard double teams and quick defensive rotations to create turnovers; A strategically high-risk system, but one that is necessary against most teams in order to not get abused by mismatches. Ironically enough, they must play this way defensively because the choice they make offensively that makes them so potent at the other end of the floor. It’s almost as if Golden State’s defense is an extension of their offense. It exists, not to protect the rim or to prevent opponents from scoring, but to initiate their offense in the most efficient way possible.

In Phoenix’s case the addition of O’Neal makes them a considerably more traditional defensive squad. But with, or without Shaq on the floor Phoenix (because of their most potent offensive weapon, Steve Nash) must help and recover well in order to play competitive defense. In this sense, but Golden State and Phoenix’ fates are similar. The difference lies in the motive behind each defense.

Golden State uses defense to create turnovers and initiate their offense. Phoenix uses defense to control the tempo and establish a seamless symmetry between defense and offense —which can be either an advantage or problematic with the addition of on again and off again Shaquille O’Neal.

In the end, though—San Antonio’s mirrors Phoenix’s meta-basketball philosophy—and accomplishes it without the inherent risks Phoenix takes playing the game without a traditional interior presence. The addition of Shaquille O’Neal could help them defensively, but ironically, it only pushes the Suns closer to the Spurs from an X’s and O’s standpoint—a battle they would be hard-pressed to win in a best of 7 playoff series.

Golden State on the otherhand must rely on their ability to consistently score buckets at high percentages to even compete against the San Antonio’s, Utah’s and Las. At the defensive end, they’re helpless against teams who can efficiently move the ball around and can take care of the basketball. And to do that over the course of a 7 game series against some of the best defenses in the league is a daunting task.

Just ask Steve Nash.