The Warriors have a chance at history; a chance to break a record that many did not think could be broken; a chance to go down as the greatest team of all-time.
So why is anyone suggesting they don't go for it?
The Warriors have 71 wins after fighting back against the Grizzlies Saturday night in Memphis. They can tie the 95-96 Chicago Bulls' wins record Sunday night in San Antonio.
The Warriors can be the first team to finish with single-digit losses in a full season in NBA history if they win their final three games.
This is amazing. We're never going to see anything like this again. People, I implore you, stop fighting greatness.
Going for 73 wins absolutely matters. The premise of the naysayers' argument is mooted by the mere fact the conservation is happening.
If 73 wins didn't matter, no one would mention it. But this is all anyone can talk about right now, and for good reason -- it's awesome and improbable and historic and we're all baffled by the magnitude of it. How could something like that not be important?
But still, we debate if Warriors should rest their stars so they'll be fresher for the playoffs.
I had no idea that winning games in the regular season prevented you from winning in the playoffs. Silly me. I bet all of those Finals losers over they years looked back on their seasons and said: "if only we had rested our starters for the final few games of the year..."
I must be even dumber for thinking that if the Warriors won 73 regular season game and a second-straight title, they'd be, unquestionably, the greatest team of all time, and that a team of dogged competitors who are obsessed with their place in history would care about roundball immortality.
I understand the caution -- the title is more important than the wins record, mainly because you don't want to end up being the 2007 Patriots.
The 95-96 Bulls said "It don't mean a thing without the ring," but they were wrong. It just doesn't mean as much.
When did doing historic, amazing things become so reprehensible in sports? When did everything a team does need to relate directly to a title -- the "only thing that matters"?
Tim Duncan and the Spurs have a chance to make history of their own this regular season. At 39-0, they could be the first team in NBA history to finish the season undefeated at home.
But according to Duncan, making history "doesn't mean anything to us."
What sort of sad, joyless robot says that? Who would want to root for that?
I'm afraid that winning a championship is no longer a moment of celebration, but instead a moment of catharsis, where the only thought is "thank goodness we didn't lose."
These teams want to establish a legacy, but a legacy goes a lot further than just championships.
The 2011 Dallas Mavericks won a title. We never talk about them. Do they have a legacy worth emulating?
Is a legacy of "yeah, they won the title, but they tanked their chance at regular-season history" something these teams want to carry?
These are two great teams that can still do unprecedented things this regular season. Eventually, one is going to go home without a title -- wouldn't it be a shame if they skipped out on setting a regular-season record and ended up with nothing to show for one greatest campaigns in NBA history?
They've come this far. It's time to stop hedging, throw some caution to the wind, and embrace history, people. Who knows if anyone will get close to doing something like this again.
