Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Comprehensive defense examination thread, part III: Defending the low post

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Comprehensive defense examination thread, part III: Defending the low post

    After two good discussions concerning "defense at the point of attack" and "wing defense", we now move on to the topic of "defending the low post".

    I'll discuss low post defensive concepts first.

    When a coaching staff puts together a defensive plan conceptually for an entire season and for a specific game, they have many different options about how to best defend a premier post player trying to recieve the ball and score on the low block:

    1. Do we PLAY BEHIND HIM, let him catch, and try and stop him one on one with little or no help?

    2. Do we PLAY BEHIND HIM, let him catch, and "dig" from the ballside wing area (usually from the post feeder himself, as discussed in the last thread) hoping to force him to throw the ball back outside to who it came from originally?

    3. Do we PLAY BEHIND HIM, and come with a "hard double" from somewhere else on the floor AFTER he catches the ball, or perhaps AFTER HE TAKES A DRIBBLE, or perhaps AS THE BALL IS IN MID AIR COMING TO HIM?

    4. Do we play "3/4" denial defense to try and keep him from catching the ball in the first place, and if so, which side should the defender be on?

    5. Do we choose to PLAY TOTALLY IN FRONT of the post, "flood" the help in behind the posted up player to prevent the lob, and then try to rotate outward as the ball as reversed?

    6. If we choose to "hard double" the post player, should we:
    ------Double off a particular weak player, regardless of where he is on the floor?
    ------Double from a particular area/spot on the floor, IRREGARDLESS of who that player we are leaving is?

    7. Is it possible for a defensive team to do multiple post defenses well, and should you change depending on who you are playing, or do the same things against everyone and force them to adjust to you?


    As you can see, this is a complicated issue........let's discuss all of this from a Pacer-centric point of view.

    PLAYING STRAIGHT UP

    The first option is the best obviously, but it takes a tremendous defensive individual player to be able to handle it. But, when you can play straight even 1 on 1 defense in the low post area with no help, it is a tremendous value to your normal overall team defensive scheme.

    More than anything else, this is why Peck and I loved Dale Davis so much I think. The Pacers simply haven't had a post player capable tough, strong, determined, or physical enough to handle this duty by himself since Dale Davis was here, and it is why he was so instrumental in the success our Pacers had when he was here.

    Looking for a player strong enough to hold his ground, and not to let an offensive player catch the ball so deep inside near the rim, needs to be a high priority for the Pacers in the future. Without a player like this, it forces you to use different and more complex defensive schemes to try and defend great (or even good) back to the basket players.

    Perhaps my biggest criticism of Jermaine O'neal was his inability to become this type of low post defender, capable of guarding the biggest and baddest post players in the league. JO made up for some of his lack of leg strength in holding position inside by being a superior shot blocker, but most of his defensive value came as a weakside defender, not guarding a guy posting him up personally. In fact, I often thought teams made major mistakes against us by not just attacking JO directly. JO was one of the best help defending bigs in basketball, but I thought he had a big and obvious deficiency in this area. JO also had extremely bad footwork in this area, often letting the player he was guarding inside drive a foot between his own, gaining leverage inside and forcing JO to make a "retreat step", letting the offensive player get even deeper position. This is post defensive play 101, and JO wasn't taught well in my view how to play with leverage, instead he got away with using great athleticism to compensate...an athleticism which fades over time as we can see now.

    Likewise, Jeff Foster isn't this type of defender either. He lacks the size and strength to be able to muscle up against big strong post players. He does have some quickness, and I think his footwork is better than average, but he just lacks strength, and evidently always will. It was probably a good decision overall for the Pacers to not develop Jeff to be much stronger and heavier in his youth (thereby reducing his agility and quickness and burst), but as his athleticism fades I wonder Jeff might be more useful if he gained weight and got stronger. Maybe not, but I think it is something worth considering at least.

    Now, I truly believe that Roy Hibbert may be able to be a long term solution for us in this key important role. He has the size, strength, and I think the tough guy attitude to be able to develop to be the man inside who lets us play more "straight up" in the low post. Obviously the game is always evolving, and Roy needs to shore up weaknesses in other areas of his game, but a guy who can play behind a guy in the low block and guard him without much help or a need to rotate your 4 other players is a huge advantage to have, and I am pretty sure that Roy Hibbert can be that guy for us for the next 10 years, if we have a coaching philosophy that values that as a skill/talent more highly than the current one does.

    DIGGING FROM THE BALL SIDE

    We discussed this in the last thread briefly, but let's go over it again.

    This is the preference for the more old fashioned coaches, who didn't want to complicate man to man defense with fancier rotations, and it is by far the most common at the high school or college level. Doing this doesn't require any switiching, any "rotating" from the weakside, and doesn't require your entire defense to move in unison.

    But, it is a fairly easy defensive tactic to beat by an intelligent offense, for a few different reasons. The main one being that is a very easy pass for a big man to make to throw it right back to the man who gave him the ball originally. Big men are often poor decision makers with the ball, but this tactic eliminates that issue for the offense.

    It also is very easy for the post player to throw the ball back out, "re-post" even better and deeper, and recieve a return pass right back inside to him. By doubling this way, the defense is allowing that situation to frequently occur.

    Lastly, if the offensive team has any coaching intelligence at all, they will put their best outside shooter as a post feeder to counter this "digging" tactic. This is why Reggie Miller was used by Indiana coaches as a primary post feeder, because if a team stupidly turned their head on Reggie to "dig" in the low block, Miller would just "relocate" to a slightly different spot, recieve an easy to make pass from our post player, and have a reasonably wide open shot.

    PLAYING BEHIND, FIGHTING FOR POSITION, THEN COMING WITH A HARD DOUBLE

    I mentioned the three different doubling options above: Doubling on the catch, doubling on the first dribble, and doubling as the ball is mid air.

    Almost anyone would tell you that you shouldn't do any of these every single time...instead, you need to put doubt in the post players mind to make him hesitate at least before making a play. This is where you need to be unpredictable. It all basically depends on how dominate the post player may be, and how desperate you are for him to be forced to get rid of it.

    Generally, coaches will have this in as a defensive call from the bench. A coach may use colors for example: "Red" meaning hard immediate double, "White" meaning double after the catch, "blue" meaning double only after the first dribble. Some teams may even have signs held up by assistant coaches, although that is normally a college tactic not used in the pros.

    Coaches are notorius control freaks we know, and to my knowledge no NBA coach currently does this, but does anyone think this might work?: Not calling the "double scheme" from the bench at all, but to instead let the players react on their own on when and how hard to double?

    THE CONCEPT OF "3/4" DENIAL

    This is really to be used in concert with other strategies. In the above examples when I talk about playing behind a man posting up, I don't mean just to let him catch it wherever he wants. Too many weak defensive players don't play defense UNTIL their man has the ball, when instead good defenders play defense BEFORE their man has the ball.

    The coaching decision here comes from WHICH SIDE of the post player do you want to try and deny. In other words, do you try and defend the "High Side" (side nearest the foul line) or "Low Side" (side nearest the baseline)? Obviously, if you can steal a pass as it is in mid air you teach your player to do that, and if they can't you teach them to slide their feet and play behind, to be between their man with the ball and the basket.

    There is no coaching consensus on this point. Some teach to always deny the high side (which is how my high school hall of fame coach taught it)...but that can leave you vulnerable to a lob occasionally, a drop step occasionally, and out of position to defend against a baseline drive. In fact, that little nugget of info is something I look for when scouting, so I can take advantage of a team who defends that way all the time.

    Others teach to always defend the low side. That can solve the above problems, but a clever team on offense can then adjust to that by attacking you with dump down passes from the high post, since you are easily sealed off playing that way. This is another scouting point, and a reason why a team should always if possible have "high/low" offensive sets in a game plan. You play my low post guy on his low side, you'll see lots of post feeds from the elbow by my teams!

    Still others teach to play either side depending on where they are in relation to the ball. In other words, play high side when the ball is above the foul line extended, low side when it is below the foul line extended. This takes more movement and work by your post player, and leaves him vulnerable at times as he is trying to shift from one position to the other.

    Those of you with an opinion or preference in this matter, feel free to give it. I've coached a long time, heard lots of discussion between us coaching geeks, and no one really agrees on how to teach it best.

    TOTALLY FRONT THE POST, FLOOD THE WEAKSIDE, AND RECOVER

    This is primarily what our current staff believes in, and is primarily the tactic our Pacers try each and every night, more than the other methods.

    It's design is to prevent a post player who is very good from recieving the basketball in the first place....which in theory isn't a bad idea. Also, by doing it against every opponent, theoretically your rotations out of it should get more steady and consistent.

    But this defensive concept has a lot of problems with it, as we see almost every night.

    First, many post players arent good enough to worry about this much. Many times I think we overreact to a post guy who doesnt deserve such respect. I distinctly remember a game against Philadelephia, where we seemed determined to keep the ball from Samuel Dalembert. Why? Dalembert is no real threat!

    Secondly, this leaves you vulnerable to quick ball reversals. Skip passes from one side to the other kill you, as does any penetration from the wing areas. The reason this is a problem is that your help defenders are SAGGED TOO LOW on the floor, having to get behind a post player. It is a small thing, but the 2 steps or so lower that the Pacer helpers have to sag vs playing it in a more conventional way means our slower guys have a larger area to try and recover to.

    Thirdly, because it requires more moving parts and more movement, you are even more open to be attacked by pass FAKES to the post. Often, just the threat of a post pass causes us to sag too deep, leaving us scrambling to defend a shooter to no avail.

    Fourth, you are severely weakened against a high post flash cut to the elbow area. Our sagging helpers cannot both sag behind a posted up player and simultaneously stop their own man cutting to the high post. This man cutting to the high post is a particularly effective tactic against Troy Murphy, who gets beat by this 5 times a game or more, and against Roy Hibbert, who is too slow to get there to defend the flasher and often ends up fouling him. On top of that, sometimes flash this guy to the high post, not only to feed him the ball there but to have him streak to the ballhandler for a "screen/roll" or "screen/pop" situation, leaving our bigs to have to scramble and move even more. Any team with a big man who can shoot from the perimeter can kill us with this tactic, such as Utah did with Mehmet Okur.

    Lastly, this is so physically demanding on our bigs that their minutes must be rationed. Combine this with our quick paced offense (which has been very effective admittedly) and your bigs are dragging late in games. You can either try and live with this as coaches or you can play more people, but that leaves you playing deeper and deeper into your bench using inferior players for too many minutes.

    There are specific teams that this works against better than other teams. I think this can work against teams that don't improvise well, who are inexperienced, or are selfish, or who have easy to guard personnel or systems. Theoretically, New Jersey, Oklahoma City, and perhaps tonight's opponent Charlotte are teams that this may have more success against than others, such as Utah, San Antonio, or Denver.

    IF YOU "HARD DOUBLE", HOW DO YOU DO IT?

    Your choices are to double of a specific player, no matter where he is on the floor, or double from a specific area on the floor, no matter who happens to be there.

    There are obvious problems with each, and a mixture is probably the smartest way to go about it. But, in general, when I am coaching and decide I have to double team someone in the low post due to an obvious mismatch, I personally like to double team from a specific area, usually for me at the high school level I choose the top of the key.

    Now, obviously this has issues. Leave the top of the key area consistently for very long, and a smart coach puts a big time shooter there, hoping you continue to rotate down from that area. But usually you can recover to that spot easier (its closer to your helpers in the lane area) and you can force that guy to make an extra pass to the weakside....and then you just have to hope you can scramble and recover well enough to get there to defend a shooter and not get broken down off the dribble if you "close out" out of control.....that's a coaching point you have to work on to get right.

    For years this is how most NBA teams defended the low post. Later on, Steve Fisher at Michigan began doing this at the college level, as the game began to evolve. As offenses got more proficient at defeating this all over, coaches got more creative and started doubling from exotic areas of the floor. I give Pat Riley and Chuck Daly credit for this, as they had to get creative to try and figure out ways to defend the triangle offense and Michael Jordan in particular, and then they adapted the "Jordan Rules" to everyday defensive concepts and planning.

    HOW MANY MULTIPLE THINGS CAN A TEAM DO WELL, AND HOW MANY DIFFERENT THINGS SHOULD YOU TRY AND DO, AND FOR WHAT REASONS?

    This is the central decision coaches have to make about everything. What are my priorites, and what do I believe I need to do most of all?

    It is in this last question where experience, playing together for long stretches of time, and long term stability are so important.

    In general, I believe coaches do tend to complicate the game way too much. I think this was and is an issue for Rick Carlisle (offensively for him) and I think it is an issue for Jim O'Brien defensively.

    However, I can also tell you that players are smarter than the general public gives them credit for in my opinion. So what a particular team can handle has to be figured out by the coaching staff. I know I have had teams I gave very detailed scouting reports to, and I've had others who I gave very boiled down and simple plans to. This is an area where coaching becomes an art form, and not a science.


    I know this was a typical and long T-bird thread, but I hope it continues the long, in depth conversation we are having about our Pacers man to man defensive issues.

    As always, the above is just my opinion.

    Tbird
    Last edited by thunderbird1245; 01-26-2009, 07:17 PM.

  • #2
    Re: Comprehensive defense examination thread, part III: Defending the low post

    It sounds like Jim is running a defense best suited for small ball, and asking a conventional lineup to pull off an extreme version of it. I can't say I like that.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Comprehensive defense examination thread, part III: Defending the low post

      you should write a book. Very very excellent analysis
      Passion, Pride, Playoffs, Pacers

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Comprehensive defense examination thread, part III: Defending the low post

        Very good post. The way we defend the low post is at the root of our problems on defense. I agree we flood the post, flood the weakside and attempt to recover. Personally, I have fronted a bigger, better post player and it can be successful, but that was not against professional NBA players.

        I tend to think good NBA teams can easily beat that scheme with some quick passes. That's why good passing teams like Utah and San Antonio cooked us alive. No, I don't think anyone can compete in the playoffs and be successful with that strategy.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Comprehensive defense examination thread, part III: Defending the low post

          Originally posted by pianoman View Post
          you should write a book. Very very excellent analysis
          I believe he is. I don't think he knows it yet. Plenty of bloggers out there have been optioned to reprint their online posts as a hard copy volume, I would say that Thunderbird is on his way to writing a very good "basketball master class" book.

          T-bird, just go to Barnes and Noble or Borders and start looking at sports strategy books. Find out who is publishing them, and contact the publisher's development editors. The editor will then ask you to write a "book proposal" and if they like it, they'll present that proposal in a meeting. If you're given the green light from the higher ups, you'll be given a contract and a schedule and next thing you know (about a year and a half to two years later), you'll be a published author.

          And I'll be at the front of the line to get my copy signed.
          “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

          “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Comprehensive defense examination thread, part III: Defending the low post

            Originally posted by Thunderbird1245
            Almost anyone would tell you that you shouldn't do any of these every single time...instead, you need to put doubt in the post players mind to make him hesitate at least before making a play. This is where you need to be unpredictable.
            I imagine this is the most important point in the whole post. Good stuff and much appreciated.
            And I won't be here to see the day
            It all dries up and blows away
            I'd hang around just to see
            But they never had much use for me
            In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Comprehensive defense examination thread, part III: Defending the low post

              Thank you to all who have written in with so many nice things to say. I don't think my posts are really worthy of being compiled into a book and sold (unless I priced the book at about 25 cents or so) but I apprecuiate the kind words.

              That actually does give me an idea though. Someday, I think I will start a thread about high quality basketball books, maybe make a list for everyone to contribute and give their favorites too...but that's for another day.

              Just for a preview of the rest of these defensive examinations, I'll tell you all that I have "Help side defensive techniques", "Fighting over screens away from the ball", "Defending the screen/roll game strategies", and "Putting it all together: a summary" all still to come to complete the series.

              These have taken some effort to write and type, so in a way, while I've enjoyed putting them together, I'll be glad when they are done.

              Tbird

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Comprehensive defense examination thread, part III: Defending the low post

                Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post

                Now, I truly believe that Roy Hibbert may be able to be a long term solution for us in this key important role. He has the size, strength, and I think the tough guy attitude to be able to develop to be the man inside who lets us play more "straight up" in the low post. Obviously the game is always evolving, and Roy needs to shore up weaknesses in other areas of his game, but a guy who can play behind a guy in the low block and guard him without much help or a need to rotate your 4 other players is a huge advantage to have, and I am pretty sure that Roy Hibbert can be that guy for us for the next 10 years, if we have a coaching philosophy that values that as a skill/talent more highly than the current one does.
                this gives hope for the future. i remember that you were comparing granger to paul pierce long before he turned into a scoring machine. if hibbert does become a dale davis type, that's two great pieces for future pacer teams.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Comprehensive defense examination thread, part III: Defending the low post

                  I seriously question if Hibbert can ever be the post defender we need because he is so slow, can't jump, he'll be taken advantage of in pick and rolls and I fear a Rik Smits type of defender - foul prone, slow, and more of a liability than anything.

                  Dale Davis from the moment he walked onto an NBA floor was a huge defensive presense and a factor - so comparing Roy to Dale is not even close to a good comparison.

                  Dale Davis in his rookie season committed 191 fouls in his 1301 minutes played. Roy has already committed 87 fouls in 426 minutes
                  Last edited by Unclebuck; 01-27-2009, 02:22 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Comprehensive defense examination thread, part III: Defending the low post

                    I am in the process of reading this, as always, thanks T bird.

                    I want to say that Roy should stop trying to draw charges and patrol the paint as a shot blocker. He has the length to affect a game this way.

                    I've said this before, and this is coming from a guy who thinks positioning and charges are one of the single best plays in basketball.

                    If Roy is going to get his Rookie initiation by getting fouls called left and right, I wish he was doing it by swatting some shots to row G, not being late to try to draw a charge. It would set him up in the refs eyes as a guy in the future who is a shot blocker and may start to get the benefit of the doubt down the road.

                    This fits his skill set, this fits the team need of what could be a huge disruption to the other teams offense. Watch Dwight Howard tonight and see what an impact a shotblocker has on EVERYTHING. (No, I'm not comparing the two, just an example of a shotblocker)

                    Dale Davis was a great rebounder, a great low post defender, a very good shot blocker, one of the toughest guys in the league in the last 20 years, imho.

                    I hope Roy can be a good scorer and a guy who can alter/block shots someday. He'll probably never be an enforcer, rebounder, or great low post one on one defender, imo

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Comprehensive defense examination thread, part III: Defending the low post

                      I am eating this stuff up.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Comprehensive defense examination thread, part III: Defending the low post

                        TBird, I was going to ask this in your post regarding Wing/Perimeter Defense...but decided to wait until you discussed Low-Post defense.

                        Next season, given the liklihood that TPTB will only be able to spend limited resources on addressing our defensive needs, I'm guessing that ( at most ), we would only be able to do one of the following next offseason:

                        1 ) Pursue the best athletic Lock-Down perimeter defender available that we can afford that costs about $4-5 mil per season in the 2009 Offseason FA Market

                        2 ) Pursue the best Low-Post defender available that we can afford that costs about $4-5 mil per season in the 2009 Offseason FA Market

                        3 ) Try to go after a RolePlaying perimeter defender that will likely be cheap to sign ( like Quinton Ross ) and then some rotational PF/C that would be considered "slightly above average" when it comes to defending in the Low-Post ( as to who, I have no clue )


                        It would seem that we can either put all of our "eggs" in one basket and address a single defensive "need" ( either Perimeter or Low-Post defense ) OR try to "split up the eggs" and try to "adequately" address both defensive needs as best as we can ( fully knowing that we won't be getting the best player out there to fill that need ). IF you had to choose one aspect of our defense to focus our attention on ( specifically choose between going after a Wing/Perimeter Defender FA or a Low-Post Defender FA ), what specific Defensive need should we try to address?
                        Last edited by CableKC; 01-30-2009, 02:35 PM.
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Comprehensive defense examination thread, part III: Defending the low post

                          I wanted to bump this and tell T bird that this was very informative. Great job!! Probably one of my favorite breakdowns you've done since the predraft stuff, which were also great.
                          Last edited by Speed; 01-30-2009, 03:13 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Comprehensive defense examination thread, part III: Defending the low post

                            Yeah I likes it all.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Comprehensive defense examination thread, part III: Defending the low post

                              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                              I seriously question if Hibbert can ever be the post defender we need because he is so slow, can't jump, he'll be taken advantage of in pick and rolls and I fear a Rik Smits type of defender - foul prone, slow, and more of a liability than anything.

                              Dale Davis from the moment he walked onto an NBA floor was a huge defensive presence and a factor - so comparing Roy to Dale is not even close to a good comparison.

                              Dale Davis in his rookie season committed 191 fouls in his 1301 minutes played. Roy has already committed 87 fouls in 426 minutes
                              Is that a fair comparison? I only mean the last part. Were they calling fouls the same way when Dale came up as they do now? I'm just asking because you'll have a better sense of the changes from then to now.

                              I'm very hopeful for Hibbert but I can't imagine him ever comparing to Dale as a defensive asset. That's why we need to find a Dale-like power forward to complement our Rik-like center of the future.
                              And I won't be here to see the day
                              It all dries up and blows away
                              I'd hang around just to see
                              But they never had much use for me
                              In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X