Post by FLCeltsFan on Aug 14, 2016 16:22:51 GMT -5
SQ2016-1 Emphasis Shift(s)?
Since the Stevens' era rebuild started there has been an emphasis on defense, both individual and team. I don't see that changing. The defensive change will be in how the perimeter excellence is employed. For two years, on offense the available assets have dictated running the offense through ball-dominant players who could “get their own shot,” since seemingly nobody else could. While wildly popular in the NBA, that approach is inherently flawed. It marginalizes the remaining four teammates—emotionally, physically, and in underutilized talent. It discourages team dynamics, both on and off the court. No less critical is the fact that it encourages and rewards opponents loading up the defense, especially if the lead dog looks for his teammates only after his own offense is thwarted. I see major changes in these areas that may have an even larger effect than the changes/additions to talent level.
On defense, previously the personnel forced the use of excellent individual perimeter defenders to protect a weak interior defense. If drivers were not stopped the edges, there was little likelihood of their path to the goal being unhindered. Similarly, if the opponents succeeded in getting the ball inside, often the perimeter defenders had to drop down and help their over-matched big men. With the addition of Horford, the trend is reversed. Now perimeter defenders can switch with much less fear that a slipped assignment will lead to an easy goal for the opposition—there is help on the inside. Horford's addition will also help his front-court partners. This is trickle down defense-onomics, in some cases the threat is almost as effective as an actual intervention.
Also while Evan Turner played much better defense than I had expected, I have no doubt that the lock-down pressure of Rozier will gum up the works of opposing offenses in a manner that will far outshine Turner's genuine efforts to keep his individual assignment from “going off.” Note the theme here, group/unit cohesion is value-added over individual efforts. It is not that individual effort is not required (and yes I did just double negative!) but rather that the effort should be part of a much bigger picture. This should probably have been the title of this article—individual achievement becomes a multiplier when seamlessly embedded in an overall team approach.
On offense the effects of this change in emphasis is even more stark. To me the most glaring example is the pass by the ball-handler. Is it a bail-out of an unsuccessful foray into the lane, or is it an aware reaction to the movement of defenders. Turner and Thomas were the primary ball handlers a large percentage of the time. They shot a high percentage of those possessions. They were the leading assist men but most of those came as an afterthought when they were unsuccessful in getting their own shot. As the talent level of the team rises, this “me first, somebody else if I have to” becomes a less and less effective approach.
If you need some other quick examples, think crossing under on the break when one side is overloaded, taking a step over to improve spacing, passing up an open shot for an even more open shot, kicking out a rebound to the 3-pt line, neutralizing a big man by blocking out when a teammate is in position, rewarding a running big man when on a break, or running the baseline to occupy a defender. Absolutely none of these appear in the box score, will be highlighted on ESPN, or will become a talking point on the next contract negotiation. You could stretch it a bit and also include honoring your word—think Ainge missing out on drafting Amir Johnson because of a promise to Orion Green, or the polar opposite of Abdel Nader announcing a willingness to play his first year in the D-league, but now reversing it and requesting/demanding an NBA contract this season (and I, at least, feel sure this had some bearing on Ainge drafting Nader).
As for the primary ball-handler, what I want is for my point guard/forward or center (whoever the offense “runs” through) to have a series of check-downs (like an NFL quarterback's potential receivers) where each of his teammates has one (or hopefully more) options where their defender can (is allowed) to make a wrong choice and allow a high-percentage look, and the ball-handler is looking for those opportunities all through the possession. Can this be overdone and become counter productive? Sure, see Rondo, Rajon! In the past has a forced shot by Thomas or Turner been a higher percentage try than a teammate's “open” look? Yes, but I would maintain that the open shooter should be encouraged to “make the play.” It may not pay off on that particular possession but over time (and an improving team) it pays off in development, engagement, team cohesion, unpredictability of the offense, victimizing/frustrating defenses, and eventually the bottom line (or final score).
Do you need the “get your own shot” approach? Sure, often at the end of every game, quarter, and shot clock. But in general, making the opponent defend the whole court, guard every player, cover every option—it will make your team devilishly difficult to contain. There is also the reality that keeping everyone engaged on offense produces consistently high effort on the defensive end.
All in all, this team should improve because of a talent upgrade, improve due to progress by individuals, improve by generating a more balanced attack, and improve because it plays as a, well, team![Discuss on CG Forums!]
Posted 22 hours ago by Lee Lauderdale
Since the Stevens' era rebuild started there has been an emphasis on defense, both individual and team. I don't see that changing. The defensive change will be in how the perimeter excellence is employed. For two years, on offense the available assets have dictated running the offense through ball-dominant players who could “get their own shot,” since seemingly nobody else could. While wildly popular in the NBA, that approach is inherently flawed. It marginalizes the remaining four teammates—emotionally, physically, and in underutilized talent. It discourages team dynamics, both on and off the court. No less critical is the fact that it encourages and rewards opponents loading up the defense, especially if the lead dog looks for his teammates only after his own offense is thwarted. I see major changes in these areas that may have an even larger effect than the changes/additions to talent level.
On defense, previously the personnel forced the use of excellent individual perimeter defenders to protect a weak interior defense. If drivers were not stopped the edges, there was little likelihood of their path to the goal being unhindered. Similarly, if the opponents succeeded in getting the ball inside, often the perimeter defenders had to drop down and help their over-matched big men. With the addition of Horford, the trend is reversed. Now perimeter defenders can switch with much less fear that a slipped assignment will lead to an easy goal for the opposition—there is help on the inside. Horford's addition will also help his front-court partners. This is trickle down defense-onomics, in some cases the threat is almost as effective as an actual intervention.
Also while Evan Turner played much better defense than I had expected, I have no doubt that the lock-down pressure of Rozier will gum up the works of opposing offenses in a manner that will far outshine Turner's genuine efforts to keep his individual assignment from “going off.” Note the theme here, group/unit cohesion is value-added over individual efforts. It is not that individual effort is not required (and yes I did just double negative!) but rather that the effort should be part of a much bigger picture. This should probably have been the title of this article—individual achievement becomes a multiplier when seamlessly embedded in an overall team approach.
On offense the effects of this change in emphasis is even more stark. To me the most glaring example is the pass by the ball-handler. Is it a bail-out of an unsuccessful foray into the lane, or is it an aware reaction to the movement of defenders. Turner and Thomas were the primary ball handlers a large percentage of the time. They shot a high percentage of those possessions. They were the leading assist men but most of those came as an afterthought when they were unsuccessful in getting their own shot. As the talent level of the team rises, this “me first, somebody else if I have to” becomes a less and less effective approach.
If you need some other quick examples, think crossing under on the break when one side is overloaded, taking a step over to improve spacing, passing up an open shot for an even more open shot, kicking out a rebound to the 3-pt line, neutralizing a big man by blocking out when a teammate is in position, rewarding a running big man when on a break, or running the baseline to occupy a defender. Absolutely none of these appear in the box score, will be highlighted on ESPN, or will become a talking point on the next contract negotiation. You could stretch it a bit and also include honoring your word—think Ainge missing out on drafting Amir Johnson because of a promise to Orion Green, or the polar opposite of Abdel Nader announcing a willingness to play his first year in the D-league, but now reversing it and requesting/demanding an NBA contract this season (and I, at least, feel sure this had some bearing on Ainge drafting Nader).
As for the primary ball-handler, what I want is for my point guard/forward or center (whoever the offense “runs” through) to have a series of check-downs (like an NFL quarterback's potential receivers) where each of his teammates has one (or hopefully more) options where their defender can (is allowed) to make a wrong choice and allow a high-percentage look, and the ball-handler is looking for those opportunities all through the possession. Can this be overdone and become counter productive? Sure, see Rondo, Rajon! In the past has a forced shot by Thomas or Turner been a higher percentage try than a teammate's “open” look? Yes, but I would maintain that the open shooter should be encouraged to “make the play.” It may not pay off on that particular possession but over time (and an improving team) it pays off in development, engagement, team cohesion, unpredictability of the offense, victimizing/frustrating defenses, and eventually the bottom line (or final score).
Do you need the “get your own shot” approach? Sure, often at the end of every game, quarter, and shot clock. But in general, making the opponent defend the whole court, guard every player, cover every option—it will make your team devilishly difficult to contain. There is also the reality that keeping everyone engaged on offense produces consistently high effort on the defensive end.
All in all, this team should improve because of a talent upgrade, improve due to progress by individuals, improve by generating a more balanced attack, and improve because it plays as a, well, team![Discuss on CG Forums!]
Posted 22 hours ago by Lee Lauderdale
