Jazz and the big man strategy
- Thread starter zman1527
- Start date
That's basically the same as 1, and not an attempt to provide evidence for it.
Dirk.
(a) No it is not, and I was not providing evidence for 1.
(b) Evidence for 3 = Success of Thunder, Heat, Celtics, Spurs, Mavericks, and posts 42, 43.
GVC
Well-Known Member
Hardly. What percentage of 3-pointers are created by bigs? I'd guess that percentage has declined over the last 20 years.
My argument was that the game has changed, and that the current rules and players' physicality favor wing players, relative to years past. I recognize that I haven't done much to support this contention, but that is entirely deliberate. If you have some data to support your argument, I might try to provide some for mine.
Dwight Howard created a hell of a lot of them in Orlando. Also Jefferson created a decent % of ours. Any big man who is good in the pick n roll, or can command a double team will create a lot of 3pt opportunities.
I guess the % of the 3pt shots created by bigs has probably declined over 20 years, because 20 years ago it was probably a very high %. I would bet the % is still relatively high though.
If you wnat to treat 3 as different fine.
Possibility 2: At the current time, through random chance, there are many more comparitvely talented wings than there are PF/Cs, but the pendulum may yet swing back the other way
Use your evidence to distinguish between 2 and 3.
You'd say this based on? You think double-teams in the post no longger create open looks?
In a climate where wing players are favored, does that mean that the elite wing players have more, or less, of an advantage over average wing players? In a climate where post players are not favored, does that make elite post players more, or less, effective? Those answers are not simple. At the extreme, if no defense is allowed at all on wing players, than every wing player can run in for dunks, and none has an advantage.
freakazoid
Well-Known Member
What if chemistry's name happens to be Al Jefferson? Having just made the playoffs, and considering the fact that this team has very good chemistry, I have very serious doubts as to our FO's willingness to trade any of our starters.
That part about never sacrificing chemistry is pretty much what has me worried that we will be getting a repeat performance with all the same characters.
Use you evidence to prove either of the above.
I maintain that they are both false.
1 is absurd, we can skip it.
2 has 4 parts, and relations between the parts
At the current time, <<<<<<<<< true, a given
through random chance, <<<<<<<< debateable, unproven, but I think it is false
there are many more comparitively talented wings than there are PF/Cs, <<<<<<< debateable, unproven, but I think it is true
but the pendulum may yet swing back the other way <<<<<<<<<<<< depends on how you define the pendulum
if you mean, that big men will be the dominant scoring forces on the best teams in the future at some time <<<< debateable, unproven, but I think it is true
if you mean that big men will dominate the skill level in the nba in the future at some time <<<< debateable, unproven, but I think it is false
Also, your analysis implies the following :
an assumption that more scoring from wings or big men is due to more or less talent from those positions <<<<<<<< debateable, unproven, but I think it is false
GVC
Well-Known Member
I never said anything of the sort. Of course double teams in the post create open looks (just fewer than in the past).
First of all, you're dragging me into arguing a point I was never making. No surprise.
Second, even if elite bigs have a greater advantage over average bigs (than do elite wings over average wings), it certainly seems as though most teams are better off creating more offense from the perimeter today than they were in the past.
There are exceptions (Kobe and Dirk have effectively leveraged defenses from the mid-post for years), of course, but we're talking about changes in the game over time. Do you really think basketball is the same today as it was 20 years ago? 30? 50?
Last edited:
I'm so late to this party it is prob too late for a different opinion.
On one hand, I do think the 'strategy' regarding bigs has changed. Mostly because the culture of basketball today (pro) is to "be like mike." Even some bigs of today are more like mike than Karl. Where as years past, they were all or nearly all like Karl rather than Mike. Another is that Derrick rose is more Mike than he is Chris Paul to me.
But at the core of it, the strategy is really "have a top 5 player" and even more so have "the top player" and then strategize from there. Tim Duncan is the reason for the Spurs strategy. Dirk is the reason for Mavs and they are bigs. And of course so is Lebron, Kobe, who are not bigs. Boston and OKC don't have such a centralized-on-one-player strategy (even though Durrant is top 2 player) so there are exceptions to all rules. And so this is where the Jazz have a chance (small) and we saw this year that even now that Duncan is no longer so dominant, you can be very competitive with a "big 3" type strategy. I'm confident that Favors will be as good as Duncan is today - so that gives me hope as a Jazz fan. I'm not so confident that any ohter player on the Jazz will approach Ginoboli or Parker however.
On one hand, I do think the 'strategy' regarding bigs has changed. Mostly because the culture of basketball today (pro) is to "be like mike." Even some bigs of today are more like mike than Karl. Where as years past, they were all or nearly all like Karl rather than Mike. Another is that Derrick rose is more Mike than he is Chris Paul to me.
But at the core of it, the strategy is really "have a top 5 player" and even more so have "the top player" and then strategize from there. Tim Duncan is the reason for the Spurs strategy. Dirk is the reason for Mavs and they are bigs. And of course so is Lebron, Kobe, who are not bigs. Boston and OKC don't have such a centralized-on-one-player strategy (even though Durrant is top 2 player) so there are exceptions to all rules. And so this is where the Jazz have a chance (small) and we saw this year that even now that Duncan is no longer so dominant, you can be very competitive with a "big 3" type strategy. I'm confident that Favors will be as good as Duncan is today - so that gives me hope as a Jazz fan. I'm not so confident that any ohter player on the Jazz will approach Ginoboli or Parker however.
That strategy would get crushed in the big boy league.
I think you could argue for the SF position getting bigger and more explosive, but not for the PF/C positions. Kemp, Malone, Hakeem were pretty explosive. Barkley would be a nasty SF in this league.
There were plenty of ballers at the SF and SG positions too though.
Basketball chemistry. I don't give a **** how well he gets along with people when he might have the least ability to play with other players that I've ever seen (hardly helps others [the net difference is negative here since he needs a pasture to work and 20 possessions a night to get his 20 points], doesn't even know how to use help from others).
In fact, the fact that he gets along with everyone so well despite not knowing how to play with anyone is probably a negative in a roundabout way since that decreases the odds that he gets moved (it seems this FO only does something drastic when it HAS to, which usually means some kind of drama).
But yeah, BASKETBALL chemistry. Winning cures a lot of locker room problems if basketball chemistry comes at the cost of how well people get along.
vslice02
Well-Known Member
I do believe the NBA has changed substantially over the past dozen years – with the prime differences being rule changes to benefit perimeter players (addressing handchecking and freedom of movement and the elimination of the illegal defense) and the increased skill and athleticism of the bigs.
However, I completely disagree with the opionion that you can win without a dominant low-post presence now, while in the previous 10-30 years you couldn't.
Look at Isiah’s Pistons (2 titles), or Drexler’s Trailblazers (2 NBA Finals), or the 04-06 Pistons (1 title, 2 Finals), or the 91-93 Bulls (3 titles before Jordan developed a post game). Those teams all had rebounding and interior defense – similar to the Thunder and Heat - but relied on multiple and elite perimeter threats rather than a back-to-the-basket bigman. You can do it different ways, but having a dominant big isn't any less beneficial now than it was 10, 15, or 20 years ago.
A dominant low-post offense isn't imperative to compete for a championship, but inteior defense and rebounding are.
However, I completely disagree with the opionion that you can win without a dominant low-post presence now, while in the previous 10-30 years you couldn't.
Look at Isiah’s Pistons (2 titles), or Drexler’s Trailblazers (2 NBA Finals), or the 04-06 Pistons (1 title, 2 Finals), or the 91-93 Bulls (3 titles before Jordan developed a post game). Those teams all had rebounding and interior defense – similar to the Thunder and Heat - but relied on multiple and elite perimeter threats rather than a back-to-the-basket bigman. You can do it different ways, but having a dominant big isn't any less beneficial now than it was 10, 15, or 20 years ago.
A dominant low-post offense isn't imperative to compete for a championship, but inteior defense and rebounding are.
Last edited: