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

Basketball - an alternate strategy

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

  • #16
    Re: Basketball - an alternate strategy

    Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
    I can't say I agree.

    Our bench has outplayed their bench by leaps and bounds. This was supposed to be a strength of Chicago not Indiana. The Pacers bench has outscored the Bulls' so called "Bench Mob" 128-84 through 4 games.

    By all accounts, Danny Granger has outplayed Luol Deng.

    Carlos Boozer has been the best PF in the series by a narrow margin but we've won that positional battle because Gibson has been outplayed.

    Noah has obviously outplayed Hibbert but Foster has made major contributions to help offset that somewhat.

    Paul George has been a revelation on the defensive end.

    Yet we are down 3-1.

    This is because they have the best player in the series.

    You need to have team play. But in order to win over the long haul, you need to have team play in concert with having a superstar. The 2004 Pistons are constantly brought up as evidence that you can win without a superstar. But they are far more the exception than the rule. And while they may not have had a true superstar, they did have 4 All-Stars in Chauncey Billups, Rip Hamilton, Rasheed Wallace, and Ben Wallace. Tayshaun Prince was an All-Defensive team mainstay and an Olympic gold medalist. Not exactly Hickory High.

    Team play is great. And necessary. But so is having a superstar. That has been the difference in this series. Until we have one, it will be the difference in all future series.
    I disagree, we aren't down 3-1 because of anything Chicago or Rose did, the Pacers are down because of what THEY did/didn't do. I would blame it on youth much more than on Rose.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Basketball - an alternate strategy

      Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
      This has been proven by thirty years of NBA championships right? Besides the 2004 Pistons I can't think of another title team that hasn't had a top 5 player on it.
      I am talking more about skewing the trend rather than totally upending it I believe.


      I don't see this. The Pacers believe in themselves plenty. Professional athletes are trained from childhood to believe in themselves. Extreme self confidence usually isn't a problem for them. The Pacers don't have the talent to withstand the Bulls playing and pressing at full speed.
      I am watching a team fold down the stretch, not a team overwhelming another. So we disagree here.


      The Grizzlies top three players make $17 million, $13 million and $7 million. The Bulls top three make $15 million, $11 million and $5 million. By your guidelines wouldn't the Grizzlies be the team being over-estimated?
      Bad example, sorry. They appear to be upside down in their contracts just like the Pacers were, and continue to be.


      A fundamental pillar of your argument seems to be that the talent gap between "superstars" and the next level of players is minimal compared to the general perception. I'd argue this isn't true. The top 5% of players in the league, like the top 5% of most fields, possess a far, far greater amount of talent than the rest of the players in the league. Ten players decide the fate of the league. Most of the rest of the players could be replaced fairly easily with no drop-off in quality of play.
      Perhaps this is where our contention lies. Because this is not what I am saying. Sure any championship -team need some very good players. I am saying there is a potential for the marginal utility of the 7-10 players to extract more value if nurtured. To do so, the team needs to drastically change the tempo of NBA basketball so that no one can play 40 minutes. Despite the number of time-outs and commercials, I believe this is still possible.

      You're also ignoring the social dynamics of having ten players with equally distributed roles and responsibilities. That doesn't happen. Human nature demands that in any grouping of people there will be a hierarchy.
      Not so much a hierarchy as a pareto on various functions such as scoring and defending. You seem to confuse a more fully utilized playing schedule with an egalitarian outcome. This is a common issue with socialist ideals; the idea that everyone will and can contribute more or less the same. This is not what I am saying, although it is a good point.


      This line approach has been used a lot in the league to varying degrees of success. It depends more on the personnel present on the team and whether that approach fits with their style of play.
      The intentional nurture of this synergy is the crux of my argument. I do not know the NBA as well as you or many others. Perhaps you know of examples of what did or did not work and why not. Perhaps NBA teams work at this more than I observe, and there is not as much opportunity as I think there is.

      But substitution patterns appears to discount it. In hockey, we would absolutely be concerned that the wrong combination of substitutions changes the rhythm of the game, does not emphasize the most powerful combinations, and frustrates player flow. In hockey, lines change together for the most part.

      Isn't this the Denver Nuggets strategy? Forty-eight minutes isn't enough time to take advantage of superstar player's fatigue, especially in the playoffs when there are no back to backs. LeBron could play 48 minutes a game for the entire playoffs and not wear down.
      Here is another point of confusion. I do not believe any player can play 48 minutes at the speed that 10 players can play, if they are executing correctly. Do teams that play lines play significantly faster? If they do not, they are missing a key component of their advantage I would think.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Basketball - an alternate strategy

        Team play is great. And necessary. But so is having a superstar. That has been the difference in this series. Until we have one, it will be the difference in all future series.
        This was the point of my post. This is not what I have been watching. I have watched the superstar get shut down for the most part, and if he would not have the advantage of friendly refs, his impact on the game would be even less, despite some of his enormously athletic plays (BTW, I believe he travels on some of them).

        I am watching a team play poorly down the stretch either by intentionally changing their own rhythm to protect their lead (why do coaches and teams believe they can change their rhythms without blowing up?) or making silly mistakes. McBob at mid-court playing PG comes to mind. This is rookie type stuff and I would have killed DC for being an idiot, but then, my idea of a good PG is not DC.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Basketball - an alternate strategy

          What it comes down to is the team the has the most talent and plays the most as a team. Having a superstar doesn't help you win unless you have a talented team that plays as a team. People just focus on the Jordans, Bryants, Duncans, etc., but none of those guys would have won any championships if they didn't have good talented teams around them. That is the difference between them and the Iversons, Wilkinsons, McGradys, etc.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Basketball - an alternate strategy

            Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
            What it comes down to is the team the has the most talent and plays the most as a team. Having a superstar doesn't help you win unless you have a talented team that plays as a team. People just focus on the Jordans, Bryants, Duncans, etc., but none of those guys would have won any championships if they didn't have good talented teams around them. That is the difference between them and the Iversons, Wilkinsons, McGradys, etc.
            Maybe most importantly to me, I believe Jordan was obviously a great team player. It stands out to me, when I watch the current crop of super scorers play.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Basketball - an alternate strategy

              Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
              What it comes down to is the team the has the most talent and plays the most as a team. Having a superstar doesn't help you win unless you have a talented team that plays as a team. People just focus on the Jordans, Bryants, Duncans, etc., but none of those guys would have won any championships if they didn't have good talented teams around them. That is the difference between them and the Iversons, Wilkinsons, McGradys, etc.
              No, the difference is that Jordan, Kobe and Duncan all played excellent defense, and Iverson, TMac and Wilkins did not.

              Jordan shouldn't be mentioned in comparison to anybody. He was good enough to break a lot of conventional basketball wisdom.

              It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

              Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
              Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
              NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Basketball - an alternate strategy

                Originally posted by Whiskeyjim View Post
                I am watching a team fold down the stretch, not a team overwhelming another. So we disagree here.
                But aren't the Pacers folding due to the pressure put on them by the Bulls? This argument is a bit chicken-and-egg, though.

                Perhaps this is where our contention lies. Because this is not what I am saying. Sure any championship -team need some very good players. I am saying there is a potential for the marginal utility of the 7-10 players to extract more value if nurtured. To do so, the team needs to drastically change the tempo of NBA basketball so that no one can play 40 minutes. Despite the number of time-outs and commercials, I believe this is still possible.
                Isn't this what the Suns tried to do? Maximizing possessions in a game and shooting a higher percentage. The problem with high volume possession teams is that they often rely on jump shooting to get off that many shots. Power post offense has been proven to be a stronger post-season strategy and by definition it takes longer to set up a shot in the post (maybe 18 sec on average?) than to shoot a long two or three pointer. Post offense is more effective, harder to find and more intensive.

                Not so much a hierarchy as a pareto on various functions such as scoring and defending. You seem to confuse a more fully utilized playing schedule with an egalitarian outcome. This is a common issue with socialist ideals; the idea that everyone will and can contribute more or less the same. This is not what I am saying, although it is a good point.
                The problem with the pareto efficiency is that in this case the resource (minutes) are so scarce and can't be substituted with another reward like money or incentives. So the trade-off will always be less talented players who will accept playing less, or more talented players who have to play more.

                With a more fully utilized playing schedule every minute player A is playing that's another minute player B can't play. In some cases it's better to have less talent for the good of team unity.

                High-level athletes can't fathom not playing a large percentage of minutes. If a team has an elite player and doesn't play him massive minutes, he'll go to a team that will, Joe Johnson being an example.

                The intentional nurture of this synergy is the crux of my argument. I do not know the NBA as well as you or many others. Perhaps you know of examples of what did or did not work and why not. Perhaps NBA teams work at this more than I observe, and there is not as much opportunity as I think there is.

                But substitution patterns appears to discount it. In hockey, we would absolutely be concerned that the wrong combination of substitutions changes the rhythm of the game, does not emphasize the most powerful combinations, and frustrates player flow. In hockey, lines change together for the most part.
                I don't know much about hockey (and I admittedly don't know a ton about basketball, only what I've read and watched on my own) so I'm not sure why the line changes work so well. Looking through some basic stats on ESPN.com it looks like the best player play between 20-25 min out of a 40 minute game. I'd guess that this is for two reasons: a) Hockey is a far more physically taxing game than basketball so heavy minutes aren't as possible and b) Basketball has more scoring and more stats. Because basketball has so many points, rebounds, steals, etc, there are more ways to quantify a players impact. Sidney Crosby can score twice in the first five minutes then play terribly the rest of the game and it's still viewed as a successful game.

                NBA players judge themselves and are judged by a collection of stats they accumulate. This is so deeply ingrained in the culture that it seems impossible to change it anywhere about the high school level.

                I'm also assuming that one-on-one match-ups aren't as easily exploitable in hockey as they are in basketball.

                Here is another point of confusion. I do not believe any player can play 48 minutes at the speed that 10 players can play, if they are executing correctly. Do teams that play lines play significantly faster? If they do not, they are missing a key component of their advantage I would think.
                NBA games don't happen at full speed, though. Even if you brought out different lines, they're still playing in the same game and experience the rhythm of the game similarly.

                The structure of basketball also demands that you have players that can fill certain positions. Most of the time it's not possible for a team to acquire two sets of serviceable players at five spots on the floor. If the second unit center is defensively weak, playing him for 24 minutes a game is virtually impossible. The strengths and weaknesses of certain players demands that they play with matching pieces, but for whatever reason sometimes those pieces can't always fill the same line.
                Last edited by King Tuts Tomb; 04-26-2011, 07:02 PM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Basketball - an alternate strategy

                  Originally posted by Whiskeyjim View Post
                  This was the point of my post. This is not what I have been watching. I have watched the superstar get shut down for the most part, and if he would not have the advantage of friendly refs, his impact on the game would be even less, despite some of his enormously athletic plays (BTW, I believe he travels on some of them).

                  I am watching a team play poorly down the stretch either by intentionally changing their own rhythm to protect their lead (why do coaches and teams believe they can change their rhythms without blowing up?) or making silly mistakes. McBob at mid-court playing PG comes to mind. This is rookie type stuff and I would have killed DC for being an idiot, but then, my idea of a good PG is not DC.
                  The Bulls are an extreme example, though, of how not to use a superstar. They have an extremely talented set of role players but seem content to play Rose-ball with the occasional set of screens for Korver to catch and shoot. Thibodeau is a defensive-minded coach and some of his offensive sets seem sadly Mike Brown-esque. The only reason the Pacers have been able to hang around is the lack of ball movement for the Bulls.

                  Your ideal offensive set sounds like the triangle offense, which makes sense because it's won 11 championships in 20 years.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Basketball - an alternate strategy

                    The structure of basketball also demands that you have players that can fill certain positions. Most of the time it's not possible for a team to acquire two sets of serviceable players at five spots on the floor. If the second unit center is defensively weak, playing him for 24 minutes a game is virtually impossible. The strengths and weaknesses of certain players demands that they play with matching pieces, but for whatever reason sometimes those pieces can't always fill the same line.
                    Now I feel we are getting somewhere.

                    First, I don't believe you would play both lines equally. in fact the chances are very high that one line would be much more defensive than the other given that high scorers obtain nearly all the money, so they are harder to find.

                    But more to the point, the search for that backup center that you described that 'fits' would be of ongoing crucial focus.

                    I'll put it another way. It might easily be true that your second line would have a negative +/-. But if it was wearing the other team down because of their intensity, and generally giving them a very hard time (perhaps playing a full court defense as well), then they would be doing their job setting up the opponent for the fourth quarter. The key is no let-up even for a minute.

                    Even during half-court sets, it is quite possible to keep the other team moving and expending a great deal of energy. In fact it often leads to better scoring chances.

                    BTW, thanks for the discussion.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Basketball - an alternate strategy

                      Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                      The Bulls are an extreme example, though, of how not to use a superstar. They have an extremely talented set of role players but seem content to play Rose-ball with the occasional set of screens for Korver to catch and shoot. Thibodeau is a defensive-minded coach and some of his offensive sets seem sadly Mike Brown-esque. The only reason the Pacers have been able to hang around is the lack of ball movement for the Bulls.

                      Your ideal offensive set sounds like the triangle offense, which makes sense because it's won 11 championships in 20 years.
                      Well, in the admittedly limited amount of NBA basketball I watched in the last 10 years, the ISO to the super scorer is the standard play in basketball.

                      It is one of the reasons I believe the alternative I'm trying to describe is actually practical. IMHO the superstar focus leaves itself open to weakness on a number of tactical fronts.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Basketball - an alternate strategy

                        Originally posted by Whiskeyjim View Post
                        Well, in the admittedly limited amount of NBA basketball I watched in the last 10 years, the ISO to the super scorer is the standard play in basketball.

                        It is one of the reasons I believe the alternative I'm trying to describe is actually practical. IMHO the superstar focus leaves itself open to weakness on a number of tactical fronts.
                        I'm in complete agreement with you on this point. For the most part I much prefer offensive sets to a plain iso.

                        This Truehoop post focuses mostly on crunch time but it details nicely what I see as the pitfalls of too much iso and not enough movement.

                        Having said all that, when I watch basketball there are times when extreme talent can overcome the restrictions of how basketball should be played. To paraphrase KStat (although he may not have meant it this way), Michael Jordan, and other great players, can "break" basketball. A bad shot by Jordan, or Bird or Kobe, is not a bad shot. It's a great shot because of their talent, as well as the psychological aspect of dominating another player. I always love to listen to interviews with players who have played against Kobe because they sound so defeated. They sound almost resigned to the fact that Kobe will score on them whenever he wants. That psychological aspect can't be quantified but I see it as valuable nonetheless.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Basketball - an alternate strategy

                          Originally posted by Whiskeyjim View Post
                          The key is no let-up even for a minute.
                          The problem with this strategy is that basketball doesn't require maximum effort at all times. NFL games require full effort but there are only about 10 minutes of actual action in an NFL game.

                          Even during half-court sets, it is quite possible to keep the other team moving and expending a great deal of energy. In fact it often leads to better scoring chances.
                          Constant speed doesn't create shots so much as changing speeds. Deception and obfuscation play a larger part in basketball than I think a lot of people realize.

                          The dimensions of the court also make spacing more important than movement a lot times. Sometimes the best play an NBA player can make is to stand still and wait. College basketball benefits more from the style you're describing where the players are small and slower.

                          All of these things necessitate intelligence and body control more than effort or energy.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Basketball - an alternate strategy

                            On a unrelated post.....why is the game 5 thread locked???
                            Larry Bird and Ryan Grigson- wasting the talents of Paul George and Andrew Luck

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Basketball - an alternate strategy

                              Originally posted by Mr_Smith View Post
                              On a unrelated post.....why is the game 5 thread locked???

                              Who knows... lets start the chat here

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Basketball - an alternate strategy

                                I've already seen enough of the Foster-McBob combo on the offensive
                                end to last a lifetime...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X