PDA

View Full Version : Should we consider Small-Ball again?



yoadknux
02-27-2012, 05:34 PM
I know most of you would think "Oh oh.. Jim O'Brien has a secret username on the Digest", but please read what I'm about to say :D
I think we could all agree we have players who are quite versatile. George Hill can defend both guard positions. Paul George and D.Jones are players who can easily swing the 2&3 positions. Granger Last season spent some minutes at PF. Why don't we try small ball?
I'm not suggesting by any means to change our starting lineup or anything, just to alter the rotation a bit. There are some teams in the league that are going to have serious matchup problems if we have these 5 players together: Collison/(Hill or Jones)/George/Granger/Hibbert - You have 4 guys who can shoot the 3 ball over 35%, and an all-star center in the middle.

So, Obviously, we can't have Granger guarding Amare, Boozer, Bosh or anyone like that. But not all PFs are low post scorers, and I doubt most of the forwards in the league would have an easy time guarding Granger.
Again, I'm not saying "Lets have Granger as our PF for the next few years!!", but rather, why not try it for 3-4 minutes a game against teams who would have trouble with this matchup?

sportfireman
02-27-2012, 05:51 PM
I understand your logic but I'll pass. I like what we have now. With the exception being Collison starting. And I will now have to go think happy thoughts since you have brought back OBrien memori.....I mean horrors.

Doddage
02-27-2012, 05:52 PM
No thanks. Small ball isn't a championship winning recipe.

ilive4sports
02-27-2012, 06:06 PM
I fail to see how this makes us better. Quite frankly there is no real version of small ball you can play when Roy Hibbert is on the court. I don't see a benefit in benching West to have George play more.

Also our offense has been at its best when running through Roy and West. Taking West out of the game means more pressure on Hibbert and relying on the 3 which seems like a bad idea to me.

Kemo
02-27-2012, 06:28 PM
I know most of you would think "Oh oh.. Jim O'Brien has a secret username on the Digest", but please read what I'm about to say :D
I think we could all agree we have players who are quite versatile. George Hill can defend both guard positions. Paul George and D.Jones are players who can easily swing the 2&3 positions. Granger Last season spent some minutes at PF. Why don't we try small ball?
I'm not suggesting by any means to change our starting lineup or anything, just to alter the rotation a bit. There are some teams in the league that are going to have serious matchup problems if we have these 5 players together: Collison/(Hill or Jones)/George/Granger/Hibbert - You have 4 guys who can shoot the 3 ball over 35%, and an all-star center in the middle.

So, Obviously, we can't have Granger guarding Amare, Boozer, Bosh or anyone like that. But not all PFs are low post scorers, and I doubt most of the forwards in the league would have an easy time guarding Granger.
Again, I'm not saying "Lets have Granger as our PF for the next few years!!", but rather, why not try it for 3-4 minutes a game against teams who would have trouble with this matchup?

I'd say no ... Roy needs someone on the floor with him like West or Foster to free him up , grab rebounds...
and take pressure off of him with another defensive big body to keep the opposing 4 from doubling him.
But yes, there will be certain matchups, where a smaller lineup similar to that, would play well in small increments, purely situational ..




.

Pingu
02-27-2012, 06:29 PM
I'd rather have players with big balls, like David West and Danny Granger...

Oh, wait, my bad, you said small ball. :angel:

Hoop
02-27-2012, 06:45 PM
I hated JOB small ball with a passion (due to Posey and Murph), but at certain points in a game depending on match ups I'd have no problem with Granger at the 4.

Considering Foster's health, Hans struggles and the lack of big man depth, it could be a good plan for short stretches.

ksuttonjr76
02-27-2012, 08:49 PM
I'll pass. With have descent (not great) depth at PF/C spots, so there really no need to ever play small ball with the current makeup of the team. Also, Granger has the type of game that is pretty ageless, so he should have a descent career well into his mid 30's. If starting using him at the PF spot, then he'll done before he reaches 34. See JO for your example.

As a side note, I don't care about using it due to injuries, but as an "active" rotation lineup...nope...no way.

Steagles
02-27-2012, 08:58 PM
I thought we already ran Satan out of town!

CJ Jones
02-27-2012, 09:28 PM
I wouldn't mind seeing it on occasion if Tyler doesn't have it going.

Anthem
02-27-2012, 09:58 PM
Danny's a pretty good defender at the 4, and he's got the post game working for him.

I'd be ok with it in short stretches if Tyler's struggling. You can basically tell with Tyler how he's gonna be within his first five minutes on the court.

Shade
02-27-2012, 10:05 PM
:banned:

docpaul
02-27-2012, 10:43 PM
No.

OakMoses
02-27-2012, 11:00 PM
So, Obviously, we can't have Granger guarding Amare, Boozer, Bosh or anyone like that. But not all PFs are low post scorers, and I doubt most of the forwards in the league would have an easy time guarding Granger.
Again, I'm not saying "Lets have Granger as our PF for the next few years!!", but rather, why not try it for 3-4 minutes a game against teams who would have trouble with this matchup?

Granger's our 2nd best post defender (after Foster) so I don't really see defense being a problem.

Prior to us signing West it looked like playing Granger at the 4 was going to be the only way to get our best guys on the floor. Now that we've got West, it's not much of an issue.

Like many folks here, I'd probably choose Tyler or West if I had the opportunity, but if one of those guys went down, Granger would instantly become my backup PF. I'd much rather have him play the 4 and increase the minutes for Hill, George, Stephenson, and Price than watch Amundson or Pendergraph try and play major minutes at PF.

1984
02-27-2012, 11:40 PM
Our length is our strength in addition to our depth, and we tried it again and again after the Brad Miller trade. I can defenitavely say it's a bad idea. It's a better idea to have a small ball option on the bench.

1984
02-27-2012, 11:40 PM
No, size matters.

Dr. Awesome
02-28-2012, 12:03 AM
Small ball has never worked at a Championship level. We don't have a true PG, throwing in 2 undersized SGs isn't going to help.

Kemo
02-28-2012, 01:16 AM
Should we consider Small-Ball again?

http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/000/345/804/TWSS_display_image.jpg?1281987888


Our length is our strength in addition to our depth,.
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRwyHH8yL8euMVIyu2R4XLMRhAulEDsB tuvz2zKIMTCOVxSPs2RXjOlHVmP




No, size matters.


http://www.pocketberry.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/twss-app.jpg

LOLZ

TheDavisBrothers
02-28-2012, 02:12 AM
our team identity is as a smashmouth team, that would completely go against it

Richard_Skull
02-28-2012, 11:07 AM
Sure, but not with Hibbert at center. The point of small ball is to take a slow(est) out and replace him with a speed guy.

BillS
02-28-2012, 12:17 PM
I think the idea that you dump a strategy simply because the previous coach overused it is pretty dumb.

I would not use it on an ongoing basis with this team, but there have been teams that ran around us pretty consistently where some foot speed off the bench and a period of playing small might change up our look.

Eleazar
02-28-2012, 06:35 PM
Being able to go small is not a bad idea, but only in strategic situations. It isn't something you do all the, only something you do when it gives you a competitive advantage.

yoadknux
02-29-2012, 06:31 AM
I think there's something we all missed.
We actually do use a version of small ball - West plays as center for short stretches, with Hans at PF :-p

15th parallel
02-29-2012, 07:10 AM
Playing small-ball is a bad idea. But playing Granger at PF sometimes can be good depending on the situation. It's not like Granger is Troy Murphy on the post defense. Granger even had some good games at PF defending the likes of Bosh and Garnett. I imagine playing Price/GH/PG/DG/RH will put the team in advantage in terms of length and speed.

The are weaknesses of JOB's small ball before are that frontcourt players play outside on offense and play very weak frontcourt defense, and playing three small guards together, with 2 PGs simultaneously playing. In West's case, while he played C early in the season, he really played like a true C, just not that good in terms of defense. But he played great in the post.

yoadknux
04-04-2012, 09:09 AM
See, it worked ;)

15th parallel
04-04-2012, 09:17 AM
It's not essentially playing small ball, but the key is always to put in the players on the court that can counter opposing teams. In NYK it works because Granger can defend Melo better when they are both at PF as compared to the slower guys, plus George, Hill and Barbosa are not small enough to be a mismatch especially when their counterpart is not so much a threat. And Lou has been playing Center all season long. So it's not essentially a small lineup, but more of a fast, athletic lineup.

It is really up to the opposing team's strengths and weaknesses for the lineup to change. I give Vogel credit for making a strategic move that enabled the team to come back from a big deficit and win.

Larry Staverman
04-04-2012, 09:27 AM
No to small ball but it does show that we still are in need of an athletic PF who can defend and rebound.

Anthem
04-04-2012, 09:53 AM
Danny Granger is smaller than "that's no moon" David West. But he's not really that small... he's got legit PF size and a post-up game to match. He's done a good job before at defending prototype PFs like Bosh, but in this case he was countering NY's move to put Mellow at PF. It's a good thing, too... Anthony was just too fast for Tyler or West. He scored on Danny too (nobody denies he's a great scorer), but it was a lot harder for him and he ended up forcing a lot of shots.

PacersHomer
04-04-2012, 10:24 AM
Yes against the Hawks & Magic for matchup reasons. No against any other playoff team right now.

Unclebuck
04-04-2012, 10:53 AM
Yes we should always use it. Oh wait, no never should it be used.

Obviously both are wrong. Sure use it sometimes, the really good teams can play big or small when needed

I feel like Mr. Obvious

funk31
04-04-2012, 12:16 PM
I know most of you would think "Oh oh.. Jim O'Brien has a secret username on the Digest", but please read what I'm about to say :D
I think we could all agree we have players who are quite versatile. George Hill can defend both guard positions. Paul George and D.Jones are players who can easily swing the 2&3 positions. Granger Last season spent some minutes at PF. Why don't we try small ball?
I'm not suggesting by any means to change our starting lineup or anything, just to alter the rotation a bit. There are some teams in the league that are going to have serious matchup problems if we have these 5 players together: Collison/(Hill or Jones)/George/Granger/Hibbert - You have 4 guys who can shoot the 3 ball over 35%, and an all-star center in the middle.

So, Obviously, we can't have Granger guarding Amare, Boozer, Bosh or anyone like that. But not all PFs are low post scorers, and I doubt most of the forwards in the league would have an easy time guarding Granger.
Again, I'm not saying "Lets have Granger as our PF for the next few years!!", but rather, why not try it for 3-4 minutes a game against teams who would have trouble with this matchup?

I've mentioned about this at: http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthread.php?t=70731

Please people understand it. We will not change our style of play and it doesn't need to.
We just need temporary adjustment on game for short period of time or few couple of possessions.

If Vogel had this kind of play like today more often, we weren't have couple loses and have 5-6 more wins.

I agree "smash mouth" type of post play will our preferred style of play, but feeding the ball to post area everytime/every possession like poor made robots,
- it leads a lot of turnovers
- will not stretch the defense
- it will also lacks SUPPORT for our post play because opposing team tightening the defense on Roy/West/Hans.

Eleazar
04-04-2012, 12:36 PM
Yes against the Hawks & Magic for matchup reasons. No against any other playoff team right now.

Actually if LeBron isn't in Granger does have a history of guarding Bosh well, but it would only work if LeBron isn't in because I think he would most likely overpower George.

I don't think it would be out of the question that Granger could guard Boozer either.

Either way though it wouldn't be a good idea to do it all of the time, and be ready to switch out of it quickly if it isn't working.

Hicks
04-04-2012, 12:48 PM
No to small ball but it does show that we still are in need of an athletic PF who can defend and rebound.

Well, technically we have one already. His name is Danny Granger. The problem is if you play him there too often you risk him getting injured.

Hicks
04-04-2012, 12:53 PM
As for small ball versus big ball, I like to think of it like this: Play the style or matchup the other team does NOT want you to play. Never play right into their hands if at all possible.

Sometimes that means smash mouth big ball, sometimes that means the kind of small lineup we saw last night. It all just depends on who you're playing against and what you have to work with. And even with a small lineup, it doesn't mean you have to play Jim O'Brien, spread the floor, 5-out offense necessarily, but rather you can do what Frank did and still be running pick and rolls and have a good defensive front court.

Naptown_Seth
04-04-2012, 01:01 PM
No.

You have a flexible lineup than can obviously make adjustments and solve issues. You play to your strengths and let the game feel itself out.

I mean DWest and Roy made some strong plays themselves, and certainly both have had great games where the team worked smashmouth through them.


Danny was struggling and other guys were hot, now Danny is hot. Roy gets a shot block and Lou gets punked, then Roy struggles for a rebound and Lou starts giving people fits.

It's freaking perfect. The only thing missing is the higher level of chemistry where guys have really learned how they best work together, so much so that the staff barely has to coach them up. That takes time, and until then you are going to have times where it just looks broken.

But the fix isn't a set style, it's just continuing to find the comfort levels and roles.

PaulGeorge
04-04-2012, 01:15 PM
I think in certain situations it works like with the Knicks but, for the playoffs no.