This Shank column from Saturday just sort of came out of hibernation from the Globe's website. Naturally, Shank
doesn't like the Warriors and contradicts himself while complaining about it:
This series is supposed to be about the new and future brand of basketball played by the Splash Brothers.
...
I want the Cavaliers to win because I think it would be better for basketball. This is not Warrior-hating.
...
No one loves long-range shooting more than me (Larry Bird loves your long range shooting! - ed.), but I don’t want the Warriors’ game to be celebrated as the future of basketball. What they do flies in the face of more than a century of pick-and-rolls, give-and-gos, and three-man weaves. The fact is, Curry and Splash-mate Klay Thompson are legitimate freaks, able to do things that had never been done. They can create space and arc shots from international waters over 7-foot defenders. But this is not how the next generation of teams should be built. It is simply not sustainable.
Last night's Game 2 was
more or less a repeat of Game 1.
So, to recap - Shank states that this series is about some 'new and future brand of basketball', compliments Curry & Thompson, then laments said new and future brand of basketball by going off on a half 'get off my lawn' tirade because the game of professional basketball may or may not be changing. The pick & roll and give & go cited by Shank (and ignoring the fast break for whatever reason) are not by themselves what defines professional basketball. It has always been changing - the implementation of the shot clock, the three-point line, the introduction of flagrant fouls (partly because of this
epic Kevin McHale clothesline) and other tweaks & refinements more or less render Shank's arguments moot. I suspect he's just butthurt because Cleveland does not have the starting five and bench to compete against the Golden State Warriors, something that has been
bloody fucking obvious to anyone (excluding Shank, apparently) who bothered to watch NBA basketball in recent months.