Dissecting Smallball
by onlxn on Jan 3, 2010 4:42 PM PST
Email
PrintThere are four salient questions here.
1. What Do We Mean When We Say Smallball?
This is not as simple of an exercise as it might first appear. When we say that a team is going "small", how do we quantify that? Is it when a team fields a couple players at positions that are "bigger" than their natural ones? Is it when a team fields a frontcourt that is shorter than usual? Is it when a team fields a frontcourt that is lighter than usual?
I'd argue that none of these criteria quite capture what we mean by "smallball". A Showtime Lakers team with Magic at the two would not be "small" just because his natural position is the one. The Suns teams of the early nineties were not "small" simply because their power forward was 6'5". We do not become "small" with Anthony Randolph at the four just because he weighs so little. For our purposes, "smallball" is most usefully thought of as a tradeoff in production. Specifically, it involves putting yourself at a rebounding disadvantage in the hopes of gaining a countervailing advantage somewhere else. As we'll see in a moment, any team you'd think of as "small" has been outrebounded by their opponents to a significant degree. This rebounding-based working definition is not only intuitive, but useful: it gives us a filter by which to examine "small" teams. Which brings us to our next section...
2. How Well Has A Predominant Smallball Strategy Worked Over The Years?
To really get to the bottom of this, we should try to cast a pretty wide net: let's take a look at every NBA team that has been outrebounded by at least, say, 3.5 rebounds a game. Opponents' rebound totals have only been kept since 1970, so we're just looking at the last forty years, here... in those 40 seasons, 112 teams have been -3.5 or more on the glass per night. Not all of these teams were intentionally playing smallball, of course... the majority of them were simply outgunned on the boards. But we'll worry about intent later. For now, let's just see how outboarded teams tend to fare.
Twenty-six teams have been outrebounded by 3.5 to 3.9 boards a night, including a 61-win Sonics team, Baron's farewell season, and a bunch of crappy teams. Really crappy teams. A number of these teams were also competitive: 10 out of the 26 had winning seasons despite being outrebounded, and three teams won 53 games or more. Still, the overall winning percentage for these teams is .408, amounting to a 33-49 record. Getting outrebounded by this much makes it fairly difficult to win.
The next tier, the teams ranging from -4.0 to -4.9 on the boards per night, contains forty-two teams, only eight of which posted winning records... the aggregate winning percentage here was .377, equal to a 31-51 record. No team in this range won 55 games or more; twenty teams lost 55 games or more. If you get outrebounded by four to five rebounds a game, it is extremely difficult to compete.
Finally, those miserable teams that have been outrebounded by 5.0 more a night have an aggregate winning percentage of .308, equating to a 25-57 team, with only three winning teams out of forty-four. This group features not only the worst team in NBA history, but the active team that stands poised to outsuck them. If your opponents outrebound you by five or more a game, you will probably be downright terrible.
All this means we have a pretty conclusive answer to our second question. The answer: not very well.
3. When Smallball Works, How Does It Work?
In the exact same way that that it worked for the '07-'08 Warriors did: it can work if you take many more threes than your opponents and win the turnover battle by a lot. That formula is the only one that has made smallball viable in recent years. That's not to say that it always works... these are not sufficient conditions to make you a winning team, and they alone do not necessarily justify favoring smallball over another strategy. But these are necessary conditions. If you allow yourself to get dominated on the boards, this formula is the only demonstrable way that you can possibly survive.
So what do you need to make this formula work? Three things: 1) a roster that takes extremely good care of the basketball, 2) an excellent point guard that finds open shots for his teammates, 3) a roster that is willing and able to shoot tons of threes at a viable percentage. If you don't have all three of these things, opting for a smallball strategy is a fool's errand.
4. Do We Have The Elements Necessary To Play Effective Smallball?
Short answers: 1) no, 2) no, 3) sort of.
1) We're committing the second-most turnovers per game in the league. That's not as bad as it sounds -- our breakneck pace has a lot to do with that, and we do force more turnovers than we commit -- but we simply don't take good enough care of the basketball to build a huge edge in the turnover battle.
2) We also lack an excellent point guard. We do not have a good point guard. Depending on what night you're looking, it seems like we may not even have a point guard. Neither Monta nor Curry nor CJ can run an offense remotely as well as Chauncey Billups, let alone Baron or Timmy or Steve Nash. We just don't have the playmaking impresario we'd need to do this.
3) Three-point shooters? We certainly have some -- Morrow's a killer, Curry, CJ and Vlad shoot them well and Monta can hit them -- but we're only 13th in the league in three-point percentage, and more critically, only 18th in the league in three-point attempts. (If Nellie wants smallball to have a prayer, he should be spending 100% of his time designing plays to get our marksmen open. But he can't even be bothered to do that.)
To recap, we don't have the elements you need for smallball. We have neither the teamwide offensive discipline you need to win the turnover battle, nor the brilliant point guard who can find open shooters and keep your efficiency high. We have guys who can rack up steals and guys who can hit three-pointers, but those things alone are not nearly enough to make the strategy a good idea. We just don't have the pieces for smallball.
But you know what we do have? We have some pretty good big men. In Biedrins, Randolph and Turiaf, we have two ace rebounders, three excellent shot-blockers, and a couple of really efficient scorers. All three of these guys run the floor well; all three of them even pass well. They are godsends for a team that likes to run. This trio of bigs may be the biggest strength on our roster. And if we want to win, we should use them. We should shelve this untenable strategy we've been obsessed with and start winning with rebounds, rather than trying to figure out a way to win without them. Without Baron Davis, smallball just won't work. Nellie has spent the last 114 games chasing a ghost.
There is no argument for smallball as a predominant strategy for the 2009-10 Golden State Warriors. None whatsoever. Don Nelson is embarrassing himself by pursuing that strategy against all evidence, and those who defend his tactics are embarrassing themselves too. There is simply no other way to say it.
This FanPost is a submission from a member of the mighty Golden State of Mind community. While we're all here to throw up that W, these words do not necessarily reflect the views of the GSoM Crew. Still, chances are the preceding post is Unstoppable Baby!
80 comments
|
10 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
well put and rec’d. i’m still a nellie guy, but it’s obvious that this team needs to play the bigs to win games. i’m going to take the risk in embarrassing myself by defending nellie in two ways here:
1) let’s see what he does when biedrins is totally healthy. then we have something close to a full strength big man rotation (wright being the obvious exception) and we should never have to see vlad rad at the 5 again. injuries decimated the front line to start the year, so it’s hard to avoid playing small when randolph and moore are the only healthy bigs.
2) pulling randolph is not about winning games. as much as people want to shout “if we play him, he’ll learn! if we don’t he’ll never get better!” the early returns on randolph have shown that this is not the case. he responds well to being yanked. after he was put back into the lakers game in the second half, he remembered to rebound. helpful stuff. i understand that if he’s in the game, we’re better than if moore or vlad are out there, but i think the best thing for randolph’s development is to be sat down when he doesn’t do what he’s supposed to do. if you stick him back in immediately after pulling him, it’s not really a punishment. if you sit him for a quarter, it seems to help him learn what he should be doing. in his first year and a third, i think we can say that randolph responds well to a heavy hand. i wouldn’t hate seeing him play more, but i can’t say that i’m mad when he gets yanked.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
1) let’s see what he does when biedrins is totally healthy. then we have something close to a full strength big man rotation (wright being the obvious exception) and we should never have to see vlad rad at the 5 again. injuries decimated the front line to start the year, so it’s hard to avoid playing small when randolph and moore are the only healthy bigs.
Injuries were going to make us undersized and outgunned for a good long while, no matter how Nellie coached. However, injuries do not explain why Anthony Randolph is only playing 23 minutes a game.
pulling randolph is not about winning games. as much as people want to shout "if we play him, he’ll learn! if we don’t he’ll never get better!" the early returns on randolph have shown that this is not the case. he responds well to being yanked.
Here’s the problem: there is no proof of a causal relationship here, whatsoever. Anthony Randolph’s NBA career thus far has been marked by two things:
1) overall strong and winning play,
2) tons of mistakes.
It’s tempting to say that only one or the other is true at any given time, but that’s just not the case. He still does a lot of goofy stuff when he’s playing well, and he still does a lot to help us win when he’s playing badly. This means you can spin his play however you want to justify his usage: you can point to early mistakes and later good play to show that he learns from quick yanks, or you can point to early good play and later mistakes to show that the quick hook rattles and confuses him. Both are plausible hypotheses, but neither have any real solid evidence behind them.
The only solid evidence we have is his record of performance in games where he gets a lot of playing time — 30 minutes or more. There is more evidence like this than people seem to realize; he’s gone a half hour or longer in 16 different games as a pro. In those games, he has been excellent — I’ll add up the numbers later, but just eyeballing it, he’s been every bit as good in his longer appearances as he has in his shorter appearances. He played starters’ minutes in the last twelve games of his rookie season, and was, by far, the best player on the floor for us; his production was borderline elite.
Now one could, if they liked, argue that this is all due to Nellie: that the old man has an unusual ability to sense when Randolph is going to have a good game, and only gives him extended minutes on those nights. But at a certain point, the blind faith in Nellie’s deductive powers becomes untenable. Anthony Randolph is a good player, who does more than enough good things to make up for his many mistakes; from all evidence, this remains true whether you play him 0, 10, 20 or 30 minutes a night. On a team as bad as this one, a player who plays winning basketball, no matter how ugly, should be playing 30 minutes a night.
The suggestion that Anthony Randolph will forget how to play basketball unless Nellie yanks him constantly not only flies in the face of all evidence… at a certain point, it becomes condescending in a way that makes me uncomfortable. Anthony Randolph, mistakes and all, is a good player, and a pretty smart player. I’m tired of us all acting like he’s too stupid to produce unless Nellie holds his hand.
Ladies and gentlemen, your Golden State Worriers.
by onlxn on Jan 3, 2010 6:15 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Randolph is too foul prone right now
Nellie has already gone over why he plays Randolph less minutes and prefers not to start him. Randolph is foul prone, and especially susceptible to the dreaded pump-fake. Nellie believes, and I agree with him on this one, that Randolph is still making too many mistakes on the defensive end to play more minutes. The shot blocking Randolph should be focused on is the weak side help, not on guys posting or facing him up. In the Portland game you saw Randolph get 3 quick fouls cause he lept through the building every time someone gave him the ol’ fake.
In short, until Randolph becomes more polished on the defensive end, Nellie is using him sparingly to keep him out of foul trouble so that he can play at his maximum level while he’s in the game without worrying about his fouls.
Randolph is foul prone
He is, but not abnormally so for a young big.
and especially susceptible to the dreaded pump-fake.
He is, but that flaw in his game is not reason enough to relegate him to the bench.
Nellie believes, and I agree with him on this one, that Randolph is still making too many mistakes on the defensive end to play more minutes.
Then Nellie, and you, should take a look at some of the other Warriors on the defensive end. Randolph, mistakes and all, is a better defender than most of our guys. If there’s a young player whose defensive mistakes should get him benched, it’s Steph Curry, not Randolph.
The shot blocking Randolph should be focused on is the weak side help, not on guys posting or facing him up.
I agree. But that flaw in his game is not reason enough to relegate him to the bench.
In the Portland game you saw Randolph get 3 quick fouls cause he lept through the building every time someone gave him the ol’ fake.
And in the three games previous to that, you saw Randolph get three fouls total in 69 minutes, despite blocking six shots, grabbing three steals and grabbing fifteen defensive rebounds. If we’re going to analyze the guy, let’s analyze his whole record, not just its weakest spots.
Ladies and gentlemen, your Golden State Worriers.
Thank you for mentioning Stephen Curry's D!
Yes he’s a rookie, fine. But it’s still an issue and a bigger one than Randolph’s, why is one player left out on the court to repeatedly get exposed while the other sent to the bench (who I think hurts us much less)?
Good question, let's speculate
Let’s assume that Nellie doesn’t do things “just for the heck of it”. He has a lot to deal with as a head coach, so I seriously doubt he’ll waste energy doing things “just because he can”. That means that there’s always a reason for the things that he do.
So the question is, why is Nellie quicker at benching Randolph than he is at benching Curry (or the other players, for that matter)? If Nellie isn’t benching Randolph “just because he can”, then he must feel there is a need for benching Randolph quickly, but there is no need to bench Curry quickly.
Then the question becomes, why does Nellie need to bench Randolph quickly? Why does Nellie feel he needs to spend extra energy watching Randolph closely with a tighter leash? Surely Nellie would rather sit back and relax and let the players work through their own problems, right?
Then the question becomes, what does Nellie hope to gain by spending extra energy watching Randolph and benching him quickly? I can’t think of anything that Nellie could gain. In fact, he stands to lose, as you pointed out Thizz, by taking out a shot blocker and a rebounder. Then the gain must be for Randolph’s sake.
So what does Nellie expect Randolph to gain from being benched quickly? Perhaps to show Randolph that he made a mistake?
Then why not just tell Randolph that he made a mistake? Why does Nellie have to show him? Why does Nellie have to spend the extra energy to show him? Because telling him what his mistakes are must not be working! If it was working, Nellie wouldn’t need to spend extra energy to show Randolph what his mistakes are!
So after that thought exercise, I have come to the theory that Nellie pulls Randolph quickly to show Randolph what his mistakes are, because telling him isn’t working.
This thought exercise makes one critically important assumption: that Nellie is a flawless arbiter of the value that different players bring to the floor. And while the wild success of his overall career might suggest that that assumption is reasonable, his recent track record, which includes giving enormous minutes to Jamal Crawford and a 38-76 record, suggests otherwise.
Ladies and gentlemen, your Golden State Worriers.
Then why else would Nellie expend the energy
and watch Randolph extra carefully and yank him quickly?
Anthony Randolph, mistakes and all, is a good player, and a pretty smart player. I’m tired of us all acting like he’s too stupid to produce unless Nellie holds his hand.
totally agree. what i’m saying is that he is getting pulled in spite of playing well, so that he will learn to stop making those dumb mistakes that are holding him back. the purpose of pulling randolph is not to make the team better, but to make anthony better. how you feel about that can be a reason to love or hate nellie, but for all the criticism of nellie for “trying to get to the win record as soon as possible” he seems to be taking a strong interest in making randolph as good as he can be.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
he seems to be taking a strong interest in making randolph as good as he can be.
That is, certainly, the tune that Nellie’s singing. He may even believe it. And if that were what he was actually doing, I’d be all for it… I’d rather see the kid develop right than see us limp to 31 wins.
But I don’t believe that what Nellie’s doing is working. Randolph has improved a good bit from last season, and he’s playing very, very well — by some metrics, he’s the most effective player on the team. When you’re one of the best players on a team, you deserve a starting spot and a little bit of credit, not a seat on the bench beneath Mikki Moore and constant soundbites from your coach about how far you have to go.
Do you think Randolph thinks what Nellie’s doing is working? Have you ever heard him credit Nellie for his development? I haven’t heard anything to that effect. All I’ve heard is that Randolph wouldn’t be opposed to a trade, for the completely understandable reason that he’s still getting limited minutes despite outplaying most of his teammates.
My read of the situation:
• Randolph came in last year completely unprepared.
• Nellie very sensiblly benched him and taught him that he’d only get to play if he started playing good, effective basketball.
• At his rookie season progressed, Randolph started playing good, effective basketball.
• As a result (well, of that and of injuries), his minutes went up.
• At the beginning of this year, Randolph was spazzy and ineffective again.
• Nellie, sensibly, sat him again.
• Randolph immediately got the message and started playing well within the first two weeks of the year.
• Nellie didn’t notice… he just saw the continued glaring mistakes and assumed that Randolph was still ineffective. Randolph’s minutes stayed low.
This cycle is now repeating ad nauseam — Randolph plays effectively despite his mistakes, Nellie sees the mistakes and assumes Randolph’s ineffective, Randolph rots on the bench and pines for a trade.
Now, if you think this cycle will motivate Randolph to outplay his teammates by even more, eliminate all the mistakes in his game entirely and become an All-Star-level talent, then fair enough… I can’t prove that you’re wrong. But it all strikes me as awfully counterproductive. Your best players should get to play; if they don’t, the intrinsic unfairness of the situation will poison whatever lessons you’re trying to teach.
Ladies and gentlemen, your Golden State Worriers.
by onlxn on Jan 3, 2010 6:56 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
fair and understandable. if nellie isn’t making it clear to randolph that he understands that he’s a good player and is trying to make him even better, then he’s doing a bad job. i hope that he is having discussions like this with randolph a lot, but if he isn’t, it’s a real problem.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
Honestly
I don’t think he’s outplayed teammates at his position besides Moore and vlad(at times).
I’m not opposed at all to wright, goose, and turiaf playing over him(vlad even for certain matchups), but Randolph should be playing when those guys aren’t healthy. Why the hell is maggette playing the 4 ever? Nellie calls it a mismatch and he is right. A mismatch for the other team. Playing small doesn’t help most of the time. The only time this year I’ve seen it work was the Portland game about a month ago. We got oden in foul trouble and tired him out when he was on the court. Other than that, when was the last time small ball actually worked ?
This is a great post even I disagree with some of it. Rec
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jan 3, 2010 9:27 PM PST up reply actions
My read of the situation:
- onlxn likes Randolph – a lot
- onlxn thinks Randolph is going to be a really good – if not elite – player
- onlxn watches the games and scours the stat sheets
- onlxn thinks he knows how to coach an entitled 20 year-old better than Nelson
Just kidding..
John 8:44 -Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.
Great post
It’s just hard for me to believe that people here, who presumably follow the team very closely, can look at all the evidence and still be ok with the playing time of Anthony Randolph.
by randolphforpresident on Jan 3, 2010 11:49 PM PST up reply actions
I didn’t get how you thought billups is a better point guard than Nash?
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
I don’t… read it again.
Ladies and gentlemen, your Golden State Worriers.
Ha sorry
Skimmed over too fast
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jan 3, 2010 6:58 PM PST up reply actions
"let alone"
IE. Bullups is worse than Nash/Baron/etc
You know I spit technique to the freshest freak
Gimme a call you will see results in just a week
With the soul of a LOST HAWK
Is there a heaven for a Rap Cat, let's talk
Actually you'd be suprised how low of an assist ratio billups has
And barons fg% isn’t too far away from billups so I’d say they are about even if barons not better.
But I think Nash is the best pg in the league. I know cp3 and Williams are great, but Nash turns players like frye and Dudley into good players. That’s what I want from a point. Improving the players around you. Cp3 is a better defender so I think that almost evens it out.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jan 3, 2010 9:31 PM PST up reply actions
Comparing Baron’s overall FG% to the same measure for Billups doesn’t give you an accurate picture at all. It’s close to meaningless. A larger percentage of Billups’ shots are 3s and he makes them at a better rate. He’s also better at getting and converting from the line.
by jae on Jan 4, 2010 6:14 PM PST up reply actions
I know
but there isn’t a big difference between the two because of Baron’s passing ability.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jan 4, 2010 6:36 PM PST up reply actions
That’s debatable, and based on the success of their teams, I think Chauncey deserves the benefit of the doubt. Don’t get me wrong — I loved having Baron here. He was probably my favorite Warrior to watch in the last 15 years, but I don’t think he’s been as valuable as Billups was at his best. Baron’s passing hasn’t been that much better. Baron’s 2 extra assists per 36 is almost exactly as much of a gain as his extra half a turnover has been a detriment. On average, they weren’t that different, but at his peak, Billups, though nowhere near as entertaining, was a more valuable contributor.
by jae on Jan 4, 2010 9:22 PM PST up reply actions
Well,
don’t you think it’s an indicator that the pistons tried to trade rasheed and billups for baron, that baron is better.
Billups had a much better team than Baron ever had, so i think they are about even players(with Billups being a better shooter, and slightly better defender, and baron being a more dominant player, and a better passer).
i think they are about even players, but i don’t know if you agree.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jan 4, 2010 10:35 PM PST up reply actions
I try not to take rumors as definite currency in “who’s better” discussions. If such a trade was really on the table, the rest of the details are important. Billups is older. Were picks headed that way? Another young player? (Was it really anything more than a figment of a Kawakami’s imagination?) Detroit also finally traded Billups for Iverson, a move that predictably (as in, I predicted it) worked absolutely not at all, so their evaluation of his worth ain’t really a great deal in the “he’s better because…” sort of arguments.
Billups had a better team, but he was a significant part of the reason it was better. By measure of how their teams did, Billups was better. By statistical measures, Billups was better. In Baron’s court is “well, I think they’re even [despite counter evidence]”.
by jae on Jan 5, 2010 8:33 AM PST up reply actions
I’m gonna enter this conversation days late. I’m a bit unclear on whether we’re comparing players peaks, how good 2-3 years ago, or how good they are in the present. If we’re talking about the present, I don’t think you can reach a conclusion other than Chauncey >>>>>> Baron….because since Baron joined the Clippers, frankly, he’s been a pretty awful basketball player….
by Missing Barry on Jan 7, 2010 7:41 AM PST up reply actions
Down memory lane…how nasty was this lineup?
Chauncy
Rip
Tayshaun
Sheed
Big Ben
Sittin in my scraper watchin Oakland goin wild, ta-dow!
Put them together today, and they’d still probably be a lot better than we are…
by Missing Barry on Jan 7, 2010 3:18 PM PST up reply actions
maybe Nelson’s use of smallball, however defined, is a product of roster shortcomings? That doesn’t excuse him or the FO from addressing those shortcomings, but most of the times I can recall smallball strategies being used since the Indy trade had to do with a shortage of bigs capable of playing significant minutes. From the time he arrived inheriting Foyle, Murphy, Dunleavy et al Nelson hasn’t had the kind of bigs usually associated with a post game – have we had any truly decent low post scorers since he’s made his second coming? If none, what alternatives might have been more effective?
Big men bring a lot more to the table than post play. No, we haven’t had that skilled post anchor who could take us to the next level… but we’ve had guys who could help win the battles in the paint and on the glass. Those things matter. Nellie has coached as though they don’t.
Ladies and gentlemen, your Golden State Worriers.
by onlxn on Jan 4, 2010 8:44 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Nellie’s problem is that he is slavishly devoted to the use of smallball to creat the mismatches he is so famous for. He will play traditional lineups, but only when he has to. Against the Blazers we had the perfect chance to create mismatches in our favor by playing BIGGER than the other team. Instead, Nellie saw the depleted Portland frontline as an engraved invitation to go small without consequence.
Sittin in my scraper watchin Oakland goin wild, ta-dow!
Exactly. You can’t survive in the NBA if you only use mismatches in one direction, especially when your smalls aren’t that good. Nellie’s stubbornness makes him incredibly easy to outcoach right now.
Ladies and gentlemen, your Golden State Worriers.
The game of basketball is really the only major sport that IS mostly about scoring the basketball. Defense is one of those things that most basketball players don’t practice. Likewise, rebounding is mainly about effort and position – not entirely size – so being small doesn’t necessitate not being able to rebound. What we would all like (Nelson included) is bigs who can do both – but benching guys who can score in favor of guys like Antonio Davis is not going to work with this team. It’s pick your poison in the NBA and this squad can’t be successful slowing it down – but I agree they are nearly as ineffective playing up-tempo.
John 8:44 -Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.
What we would all like (Nelson included) is bigs who can do both – but benching guys who can score in favor of guys like Antonio Davis is not going to work with this team.
Setting aside the fact that Antonio Davis would’ve helped this team, our current bigs are not all that comparable to Antonio Davis. Biedrins, Randolph and Turiaf all run and pass extremely well, and the latter two shoot enough jumpers to keep defenses at least slightly honest. These are not players that force you to slow it down… all three of them have been playing and succeeding in a sprint style for their whole careers.
Rebounding vs. speed is a false choice on this team. We can have both.
Ladies and gentlemen, your Golden State Worriers.
I’m not sure we are arguing the same thing – I agree that the three bigs we have don’t force us to slow it down but they also (minus AR) don’t contribute a lot offensively. Arguably the most skilled around the basket – AB – is extremely limited at best.
Also,
Biedrins, Randolph and Turiaf all run and pass extremely well,
That’s a leap I’m not willing to make.
John 8:44 -Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.
The game of basketball is really the only major sport that IS mostly about scoring the basketball.
I’m not sure what you mean by this. If you mean that offense is more important than defense, there’s not much to support this.
The impact of a team’s defensive ability relative to the league average has almost exactly as much impact on the final outcome as a team’s offensive abilities relative to the league average. The notion that defense is half the game has strong, strong empirical support. Whether or not most players practice it, it’s as important to the overall outcome as offense is.
Likewise, rebounding is mainly about effort and position – not entirely size – so being small doesn’t necessitate not being able to rebound.
If rebounding is mostly about effort, then effort seems to be one of those things that almost impossible to change since rebounding rates for players tend to be far more stable than most statistics. It could be all about effort, but that still gets you nowhere when you’re trying to improve your rebounding without changing personnel.
by jae on Jan 4, 2010 6:20 PM PST up reply actions
Honestly
rebounding is something you can improve on with effort. But few players change their rebounding effort over their career. It is either very natural or not. Gasol and Garnett are the only two players i can think of that started out as bad rebounders, and became very good if not great rebounders.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jan 4, 2010 6:39 PM PST up reply actions
I’m not sure what you mean by this. If you mean that offense is more important than defense, there’s not much to support this.
This is not what I meant.
What I meant is that every basketball player – from the time they are young – works primarily on offense. You can argue that offense is only half the game but anyone who has played understands that this is not a reality in the game of basketball. You don’t go to the gym to work on defense – you go to shoot around. Basketball players – more than any other major sport are predominately offensive players.
If rebounding is mostly about effort, then effort seems to be one of those things that almost impossible to change since rebounding rates for players tend to be far more stable than most statistics.
No argument on that – I was just saying that size does not necessitate good rebounder. I agree that you can be a good rebounder regardless of size.
John 8:44 -Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.
but we’ve had guys who could help win the battles in the paint and on the glass
not trying to pick a fight, but who specifically are you thinking of in this appraisal?
We’ve Anthony Randolph, one of the league’s best rebounders and a really good shot-blocker, for almost the entire year. We’ve also had Andris Biedrins, one of the league’s best rebounders, a really good shot-blocker and one of the league’s best inside scorers, for about a quarter of our games. That’s not much, but it’s not nothing, either. We’ve also had Ronny Turiaf, a decent rebound and one of the league’s best shot-blockers, available for about a third of our games.
To belabor a point, these guys also run and pass well… they don’t actively detract from anything we’ve been trying to do. They’re assets. Nellie has shunted them aside more than a thinking coach would. Injuries are not the whole story here.
Ladies and gentlemen, your Golden State Worriers.
total agreement with Supafishal !!
I was thinking the very same thing.Why not play Biedrins and Turiaf or even Randolph at the 3 with them both ! Instead we chose the usual “smallball” only to get crushed by their bigger,craftier guards!! Typical obstinate Nelson-no adaptation as a coach, period ! Besides that he is almost always waaaaaaay late in making substitutions to give guys some rest.
Dr. Jeff
good post, important discussion
I agree with your conclusion, that playing Turiaf, Biedrins, and Randolph together (and Wright when he returns becomes part of the equation as well) should be part of the game plan, should be schemed for and developed. I don’t however agree with premise that rebounding deficits are the primary defining factor of small ball, and that our bigs should play more because of that. The bigs should play big minutes simply because they are better players than Curry, Watson, and Morrow.
Small ball, as I understand and conceive it, is a result of the understanding that there are limited numbers of skilled big men in the NBA, and that teams who adhere blindly to having to have a prototypical center and power forward on the floor at all times will usually wind up playing stiffs. There are many more 6’5" skilled players than 6’10" skilled players, and by having a philosophy of trying to have better players on the floor than your opponent, one should have more chance to dictate the flow of the game. More better players = good.
Rebounding stats can be deceptive, teams rebound a much higher percentage of their defensive chances than their offensive chances. Teams which don’t create many turnovers but force bad shots/play good hard defense will have more opportunties to rebound and their numbers will be skewed because of that.
I don’t believe a team playing small ball has to cede the rebounding edge to the other team. A team with a bunch of long, tough wings can play swarming defense, switch, recover, rebound well, and run. Often these type of players can be had for cheap (Barnes, Kelena, etc…) due to the glut of similar players in the league and so many of them being overpaid and getting too much run because of their contracts.
After the Murphy/Dunleavy trade, the Warriors found a identity which worked for the coach and the personnel. The next year, Barnes was much less effective, Richardson was gone, Pietrus was fantastic for about two months until he got injured, Buike got better bit by bit, for half the season the Warriors were playing a very good version of small ball, but then the lack of depth for Baron, Biedrins, and the wings caught up to them. Still, it was a good team with a cogent philosophy, and definable needs.
Now, at this point, we have one wing player who can play that way, and he is out for the season. Maggette, isn’t that kind of player and neither is Morrow. Radmonovich I suppose is close, but the current Warriors don’t have the talent on the roster to play this style of ball, not that I think that style is inherently flawed or needs to cede rebounds.
You want your most skilled players to be decisive in the game. Post defense, rebounding, running the floor, switching, ball-handling are all skills just as passing, shooting and drawing fouls are skills. In the NBA, it is easier to field a skilled wing-centric team, than to try to build around ideal prototype players. Our team does not have skilled wings conducive to playing effective small ball, our bigs need to be a large part of the strategy going forward.
by jakarta on Jan 4, 2010 1:49 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Great post.
I don’t however agree with premise that rebounding deficits are the primary defining factor of small ball, and that our bigs should play more because of that. The bigs should play big minutes simply because they are better players than Curry, Watson, and Morrow.
Equating smallball with rebounding woes is a bit of an arbitrary device on my part… I can’t expect everyone to agree with it. However, you’re essentially restating the same thing that I said. If Curry, Watson, Morrow and Monta were better, smallball might be worthwhile, because they’d be taking better care of the basketball and scoring in bunches from the outside. They’re not doing that… they don’t take good care of the basketball, and while they can shoot well from three, they’re not good at getting themselves or each other open from beyond the arc very often.
Rebounding is not the end-all be-all, but you need a really savvy perimeter player or two to compete without it. We used to have guys like that; we no longer do.
I don’t believe a team playing small ball has to cede the rebounding edge to the other team.
Well again, it’s a semantic issue, one on which we may not make much progress. But it’s worth noting that twenty of the last twenty-one teams coached by Nellie have been outrebounded by their opponents, most of them by a lot. “Nellieball”, as it’s been practiced for the last twenty-five years, does tend to involve rebounding deficits. I really don’t think that track record is a coincidence.
You make great points about smallball-conducive wings and our current lack of them; this was an issue I omitted due to length, but it’s another important point. If you’re going to use a four who hurts your rebounding, he needs to 1) be able to at least slow down opposing fours defensively, and 2) space the floor on offense by shooting threes, opening up lanes for your smalls. Al Harrington hit threes and played solid man D on big guys; he was a good smallball four. Matt Barnes hit threes (for a while, anyway) and affected shots and smacked dudes in the face; he was a good smallball four. ‘Buike hits some threes and affects some shots; he could make a good smallball four. Maggette doesn’t hit threes and doesn’t make any real defensive impact; he’s a useless smallball four. Using him in that way is a waste of a perfectly good player.
However, it’s worth noting that even with Al and Barnes at the four, we got slaughtered on the boards… both the ‘06-’07 and ‘07-’08 teams rate among the 100 worst-rebounding teams in league history. Smallball was an effective strategy in those years, but it did come at a cost. If we’d gotten league-average three-and-four rebounding from Jack and Al in addition to their other contributions, the ‘07-’08 Warriors would’ve won about 60 games. There are ways to win that don’t involve rebounding well, but good rebounding always helps, and bad rebounding always hurts.
Ladies and gentlemen, your Golden State Worriers.
Small ball does not win chapionships.
Two teams with equal talent and one is bigger. The bigger team will win. Please no more small ball.
Onlxn
While I don’t agree with everything he writes, I think it is safe to assume this team would be light years ahead if they hired a like-minded individual and incorporated his input. For the most part, those who argue with his ideas (such as playing AR more) are just ignorant and blind.
I do agree, however, with Jakarta regarding the definition of small-ball, that is, it cannot be defined as getting soundly beaten on the boards. For example, a coach could play 5 seven-footers, they might get crushed on the glass because they are too slow, but most certainly, no one would be able to call them “small.” Getting out-rebounded is a result of “small-ball,” not the defining cause of it.
Onlxn, keep up the good writing.
Onlxn
You are a beast and it is posts like these that confirm the objectively verifiable fact that you are the best commenter here.
I don’t agree that small ball doesn’t win championships, but as onxln showed you need the right personnel. And I think you need one or two good playoff matchups along the way. I still wonder what would have happened if the Rockets would have beat the Jazz in Game 7.
I still wonder what would have happened if Pietrus didn't lose game one with his free throws
and all the other close games where we lost.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jan 4, 2010 6:37 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
(If Nellie wants smallball to have a prayer, he should be spending 100% of his time designing plays to get our marksmen open. But he can’t even be bothered to do that.)
It seems like it would be hard to design plays purely to get shooters open. You would set screens. But a screen is meant to restrict space for the defender thereby opening it up for the offensive player; however, when you are forced to stay outside the 3 point line (nobody likes a long 2) it gets hard to use a screen well. You don’t want to get closer to the basket but not unreasonably far either, so you essentially travel along one dimension (the perimeter) Really though, I doubt Morrow or Curry or Watson are even quick/ physical enough to play the Allen/Rip Hamilton role.
Obviously it would be easier if we could play inside-out, with a drive-and-kick guard/dominant big. Paging Mr. Wall.
It seems like it would be hard to design plays purely to get shooters open.
Was all the game tape of the Reggie Miller era Pacers destroyed in a fire? Seems like they managed to run an offense designed to get him open for years.
by jae on Jan 5, 2010 8:46 AM PST up reply actions
Comparing Morrow to Reggie/Ray already? I doubt Morrow has the foot speed/experience for it at this point. If he can pull it off well, then great, I’m all for it.
Unfortunately our personnel doesn’t have the required skills for those kinds of plays. We have some very good spot up shooters between Buike, Watson, Morrow, etc….but none of them moves well without the ball or uses screens effectively to get themselves open….
by Missing Barry on Jan 7, 2010 7:49 AM PST up reply actions
I would much rather have a pure shooter who needs to learn how to use screens then have an excellent floater who can’t shoot. For what that’s worth.
Sittin in my scraper watchin Oakland goin wild, ta-dow!
Hmmm….I dunno, the first thing that comes to mind on the pure shooter is someone like Morrow for me, and for the “float who can’t shoot”, I’m thinking of Monta from 2 years ago….I really liked Monta from 2 years ago next to Baron….
In conclusion, the important point is “I dunno”.
by Missing Barry on Jan 7, 2010 3:20 PM PST up reply actions
The Knicks are averaging 27.3 three-point attempts per game to our 16.9. They have David Lee, yes, but he’s not much of a post player — he’s essentially a pick-and-roll guy like Andris — and he doesn’t pass well. And their perimeter offensive talent is much worse than ours: slower, worse ball-handlers, generally worse at shooting threes. They’re still second in the league in the category, and a much better team than we are largely because of it.
You’ve made this contention before, and it just doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. You can get shooters open if you strategically commit to getting them open. Driving and kicking, screens, trailers on breaks, whipping it around the horn when you have three or more shooters in… there are plenty of ways to do it. If your coach puts some energy into drawing up a strategy, and convinces his players that almost all of their long jumpers have to come from beyond the arc, you will get tons of open three-point shots. The Knicks’ coach does those things; our coach doesn’t.
Ladies and gentlemen, your Golden State Worriers.
Its also because
they have Gallo. He is a huge part of their success on 3’s and the rest of the offense.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jan 5, 2010 5:10 PM PST up reply actions
One difference is the Knicks have 2 bigs that consistently chuck 3’s. Harrington 5.4 3’s per game & Gallinari who shoots 6.8 per game (who granted also plays some SF when Chandler or Jeffries isn’t in). That 12.2 3’s per game. now they’ve added Bender who chucks 1.4 per game.
It’s just a lot easier for 4’s & 5’s to have the space to hoist up a 3 than it is a small player. The 3 teams that lead the league in 3 pt attempts all have guys playing the 4 or 5 position who can shoot 3’s (Magic, Knicks & Suns).
The other difference is that the dubs 2 primary scorers, both of whom are perimeter players (Monta & Maggette), do not really have that shot in their arsenal. Monta 1.8 3 pt attempts per game and Maggette 1.0 3 pt attempts per game.
So the majority of the difference between the Knicks & the dubs most likely requires those 2 taking 5 or 6 more 3’s each per game (instead of mid range jumpers). but Monta is a career 28.8% (29.3% this year) & Corey a career 32% (20% this year & is a career 24% with the dubs) and so they are unlikely to alter their shot selection. the Knicks players probably all have better recent track records.
Not even factoring FT attempts, Monta shoots 8% of his shots from 3 pt land. Corey is at 9% and dropping. B/c the offense is run through 2 non 3 pt shooters, the dubs 3 primary shooters, Morrow (45% of his shots are from 3), Curry (32%) & Watson (36%) don’t get the shot attempts.
If you factor FT attempts using the TS% formula, none of those guys are in the top 3 on the team in terms of shots per game (AR is 3rd behind Monta & Corey at 11.248, just ahead of Curry at 10.892 – & 2% of AR’s shots are from 3). The 3 pt attempts will probably more likely go down some w/ Vlad and his 3.3 att/g from the big positions likely to dwindle down b/c he’ll be getting less minutes.
So unless the 3 guys who shoot the most (Monta, Corey, AR) start hoisting up more 3’s or start passing the ball more to the guys who hoist up the most 3’s (Morrow, Curry, CJ), it’s unlikely you’ll get more 3 pt shots no matter who the coach is.
by homer simpson on Jan 5, 2010 10:32 PM PST up reply actions 3 recs
One of the reasons I (and probably many others) was so down on Maggs was because playing him with Monta and AR means we only have one 3-point shooter on the floor. In light of his recent performances it looks like AR is sitting and Maggs sliding to the 4. What do you think of the Warriors’ 2 primary wing scorers being non-3 point threats? Is it sustainable? Can we afford to play Monta with non-shooters at all (John Wall or Evan Turner if they don’t turn out to be marksmen)?
What do you think of the Warriors’ 2 primary wing scorers being non-3 point threats? Is it sustainable?
Probably not. And if Monta’s not a point guard (and he’s not), he’s probably going to need to become a reliable three-point shooter to be a fully effective player long-term. It’s one of the many question marks that surrounds his value.
In the short term, any time we’re playing smallball, we’d be well-served to have either Monta or Maggette (or preferably both) shoot more threes, whether or not they’re making them at a good rate. If we use a normal-sized lineup it’s not as vital. But either way, we could really use a consistent three-point stroke from Monta.
Ladies and gentlemen, your Golden State Worriers.
he’s probably going to need to become a reliable three-point shooter to be a fully effective player long-term
I think he can already be a fully effective player long-term with the skills he has – it just has to involve a strategy where he doesn’t dominate the ball as much as he currently does. He was great playing next to Baron because he’s a fantastic off-ball player – whereas with the ball his court vision and ballhandling are lacking and cause too many turnovers, and he takes too many poor shots. So if we put him in a situation where he’s off the ball a lot more often (and whoever has the ball can get it to him in good situations like Baron could), I don’t think he necessarily needs a 3 point shot to be extremely effective.
by Missing Barry on Jan 7, 2010 7:52 AM PST up reply actions
Maybe a better way of putting it: a 3-point shot would make him effective in a greater variety of situations. He was supremely effective opposite Baron, but ideally a $66-million guy wouldn’t need a star alongside him to be effective. With a viable three-point shot, he helps to stretch the floor for others and opens his own drives up a tad. It’d make him an easier piece to incorporate into a puzzle.
Ladies and gentlemen, your Golden State Worriers.
One difference is the Knicks have 2 bigs that consistently chuck 3’s. Harrington 5.4 3’s per game & Gallinari who shoots 6.8 per game (who granted also plays some SF when Chandler or Jeffries isn’t in)
More than “some”… he’s spent 70% of his time on the perimeter. Harrington I’ll give you, but we also have a stretch four in Vlad, a four who’s good at shooting threes and nothing else. And he’s shooting fewer threes, both per shot and per minute, than he was in Charlotte. Vlad basically shouldn’t play unless he’s shooting threes, early and often… he’s taken his share, but Nellie’s been far too liberal about letting him try other stuff.
The other difference is that the dubs 2 primary scorers, both of whom are perimeter players (Monta & Maggette), do not really have that shot in their arsenal. Monta 1.8 3 pt attempts per game and Maggette 1.0 3 pt attempts per game.
So the majority of the difference between the Knicks & the dubs most likely requires those 2 taking 5 or 6 more 3’s each per game (instead of mid range jumpers). but Monta is a career 28.8% (29.3% this year) & Corey a career 32% (20% this year & is a career 24% with the dubs) and so they are unlikely to alter their shot selection. the Knicks players probably all have better recent track records.
They don’t. The Knicks have gotten most of their attempts from seven guys: Gallinari (.417), Chris Duhon (.366), Al (.352), Nate (.350), Jonathan Bender (.338), Toney Douglas (.333), Wilson Chandler (.314), Larry Hughes (.309). Gallinari’s a marksman, and Duhon’s pretty good, but most of these guys are barely above league average for their careers. And several of them aren’t even shooting the three well this season — Al, Chandler and Hughes are all below .300 on the year. But you know what? It still helps them, because the threes are worth a lot when they go in, and even if they don’t, they help clear the lane and the wing for the other smalls. Their three-point barrage puts the defense on its heels, just like we used to do.
We have Anthony Morrow (career .457), Curry (.398 even before tonight), CJ (.389), Vlad (.379), Maggette (.320) and Monta (.288). Simply put, we have more three-point shooting talent than the Knicks do; in terms of outside shooting, our small lineup of Curry/Monta/CJ/Maggette/center compares favorably with any lineup they can field. And if we’re going to insist on playing small, we should try to take advantage of that.
So, yeah — if we’re going to play small, Monta and Maggette should absolutely shoot more threes. Better that they shoot threes with a 27% chance of going in than twenty-footers with a 38% chance of going in. And the more we force our opponents to scramble behind the line, the more we’ll open holes up for the skilled shooters. It’ll mean we see some ugly bricks from time to time, but that’s a price worth paying… it’d still be a net plus, a big one, for our offense.
Ladies and gentlemen, your Golden State Worriers.
missing the point. who decides what shots they’ll take? ultimately it’s the players, usually based on the confidence they have in said shots (or you would probably almost never see walk up 3’s). shot selection is part of a player’s make up. a coach can’t force a player to shoot a shot, he can only give that player the freedom to do so.
Monta & Corey don’t have confidence in their 3 pt shots. That’s why they shoot them less than 10% of the time. Their instincts are to attack the basket as much as possible. They aren’t comfortable chucking 3’s, just as JRich probably isn’t comfortable dribbling the ball with his left. just like how Turiaf is always going to throw an unnecessary extra pass b/c that’s who he is.
In Vlad’s case, he had more than his share of opportunities to shoot the 3. He was obviously apprehensive to shoot b/c of his % (24%). For whatever reason, Corey has obviously lost his touch from 3 (20%).
So w/ their present state of minds, right now the dubs have 3 guys who are comfortable shooting the 3 (though Morrow sure does pass up on a lot of them) – Curry, Morrow & CJ – and those 3 are 4th, 6th & 8th among healthy players in touches based on usage% (and that’s with Ronny & Andris currently at 9th & 10th).
track records as in volume of 3 pt shots per fg attempts. again, the Knicks have guys who historically shoot lots of 3’s. Hughes wasn’t always one, but since 03-04, he has hoisted 3.44 3’s/g. (3.4 this year). Duhon is at 3.5 over his career, Al actually shot more 3’s per shot attempt with the dubs than he has with the Knicks. Nate has shot just about as many 3’s per shot attempt under D’Antoni as he did under Brown & Thomas. It’s who they are.
It’s pretty illogical to believe that a coach & a system that led the league in 3 pt attempts in 06-07 & 07-08 “doesn’t do those things” so to speak.
the dubs don’t shoot 3’s b/c Monta & Corey decide (& to a lesser extent Randolph) not to take them. whether they should or shouldn’t isn’t what i’m trying to explain to you. if you want more 3’s, you have to get players who have the mindset to shoot them which is what the Knicks have done. the freedom is already there.
btw Al alone has shot over 3 more 3’s per game than Vlad has with the dubs (2.2 over 33 games). not to ? 82games, i just assumed Gall played more PF b/c he replaced Al in the starting line up earlier on in the year & b/c Al often plays C when Lee rests. I just didn’t realize that Jeffries was the PF. Gallinari still gets 33% of his minutes at PF which is roughly around 2.2 shots, add in Jeffries 0.7 + Bender’s 0.3 over 34 games and the Knicks PF/C is still hoisting about ~8.6 shots to ~3.6 (2.2 Vlad + ~0.7 for Corey (~70% of his minutes at PF/C + ~0.7 for Jack over 33 g w/ about 55% of his minutes coming at PF). it’s fuzzy, b/c maybe Gall shot more 3’s as a PF or vice versa, but still a big enough gap combined with the other signs of teams with bigs who shoot 3’s being among the league leaders in 3 pt attempts.
by homer simpson on Jan 6, 2010 1:40 AM PST up reply actions
Monta & Corey don’t have confidence in their 3 pt shots. That’s why they shoot them less than 10% of the time.
This is conjecture. It may well be correct, but still, it’s conjecture. Maggette’s only taking half as many threes as he took last year — is that because he’s lost confidence in his three-point shot, or because Nellie has told him to shoot fewer threes, or because Nellie has designed fewer plays to get Maggette open for threes? It’s hard to say… I’d imagine it’s a combination of all three (Lord knows there’s been no louder outcry from the fanbase than the one telling Maggette to stop shooting threes). But to say that Nellie is powerless in this situation is simply not correct.
12% of Channing Frye’s shots were threes last year. This year? 57%. And yes, Frye’s shot has gotten better. But do you really think he’s just quintupled the frequency with which he’s taken threes and Alvin Gentry has just stood by and shrugged?
It doesn’t work that way. A player’s comfort level plays a role, but coaching and play-calling also play roles. And the idea that Monta Ellis and Corey Maggette are just steadfastly unwilling to shoot from beyond the arc, to me, doesn’t hold much water. If Nellie made it a point of emphasis, they might not shoot as many threes as he’d like, but they’d certainly shoot more threes than they’re currently shooting. Neither guy is exactly shy.
track records as in volume of 3 pt shots per fg attempts.
This is an incomplete analysis. It’s not just that the Knicks’ shooters take a high percentage of their shots from three-point land (which they do); it’s also that they commit to getting the ball in those guys’ hands. The Knicks have had a number of players who don’t shoot threes besides David Lee, but Mike D’Antoni has given them extremely short leashes. Jeffries, Curry, Wilcox, Jordan Hill… none of these guys are getting traction, because they can’t/won’t space the floor.
To be clear, I’m not saying that’s what we should do. I’d obviously rather see us use a traditional lineup, because I think that’s the best use of the talent at hand. But if Nellie’s determined to go to war with smallball, he needs to be equally dogmatic about demanding floor-spacing. And Corey Maggette can’t be an effective stretch four unless he shoots from three.
It’s pretty illogical to believe that a coach & a system that led the league in 3 pt attempts in 06-07 & 07-08 "doesn’t do those things" so to speak.
The problem is that Nellie shares your attitude: that there’s not much you can get basketball players to do offensively. He’s been governing with a laissez-faire attitude, that says guys can do whatever they want. And when we had Baron, that worked okay, because Baron could find shooters and score a bunch himself.
But laissez-faire is no longer working. We don’t have a decision-maker on the floor to equal Baron; nobody’s making the offense cohere in an efficient way. That’s when you need the coach to come in and make some changes. Nellie could make the lineup bigger, or he could try to wring more threes out of smallball. But he could do something. You can force some incremental shifts in a player’s approach; look no further than Anthony Randolph for that.
if you want more 3’s, you have to get players who have the mindset to shoot them which is what the Knicks have done.
Willingness is not the whole story.
Knicks, 3-point shots per 48 minutes:
Gallinari 10.5, Nate 9.5, Al 8.3, Douglas 8.0, Duhon 6.7, Hughes 5.7, Chandler 3.9
Warriors, 3-point shots per 48 minutes:
Morrow 6.5, Vlad 5.7, Curry 4.9, CJ 4.4, Monta 2.1, Maggette 1.6
Now, I’ll grant you that the Knicks’ ability to put both Danilo and Al at the four gives them a bit of an edge. But that doesn’t explain why five Knicks shoot threes more often than the defending three-point champion. But that doesn’t explain why Nate Robinson shoots threes twice as often as CJ. It doesn’t explain why Larry Hughes shoots threes more often than Steph Curry. It doesn’t explain why Wilson Chandler, a guy who only took 30 threes total in his rookie year for Isiah, and whose career percentage is worse than Maggette’s, takes as many threes as Monta and Maggette combined. We probably couldn’t match the Knicks’ 27.3 three-point attempts a game, but that doesn’t mean that we have to shoot as few as 16.9.
We’re not taking many threes because we’re too busy letting Monta and Maggette launch twos. In Maggette’s case, that’s a worthwhile trade; in Monta’s case, it’s not. Montamania is not as effective as a three-point barrage would be. And it’s not like this is the way that Monta has always played, so it’s not like Nellie is powerless to stop it.
We’re just not trying very hard on this front. We draw up plays to get Morrow open, but not Curry or CJ; we’re not sitting Monta, giving ourselves a two-marksman backcourt for ten minutes a game; Maggette, if anything, looks like he’s been told to stop shooting threes. There is no emphasis on three-point shooting. There is no emphasis on anything. And while you can contend that Nellie’s powerless to stop all of this, I think you know that’s an oversimplification. Other coaches are capable of coaching… he’s the only one that pretends it’s impossible.
Ladies and gentlemen, your Golden State Worriers.
Maggette’s only taking half as many threes as he took last year — is that because he’s lost confidence in his three-point shot, or because Nellie has told him to shoot fewer threes, or because Nellie has designed fewer plays to get Maggette open for threes?
I have noticed that Maggette’s 3 pt attempts seem to covary with his success rate. Seasons where he’s shot well, he’s taken more. Seasons where the shot isn’t falling, he seems to not take it.
Even within last season he started out shooting the long ball poorly and was widely criticized for taking too many by people here (many of whom still seem to be acting as if he’s playing like he did a year ago November). But after not too long, he started taking fewer threes. When he started making more of those fewer attempts, he added it back incrementally. I think he may be one of the few players who seems to understand what shots are working for him at different times and adjusts his offensive game accordingly.
I’d agree with that. Maggette seems to have a capacity to self-regulate his offensive production that most players lack… you don’t put up a decade of incredibly consistent good scoring years if you don’t know how to make needed tweaks to your game.
The problem, of course, is that he kind of needs a three-point shot to have any potential as a smallball power forward. And while I don’t blame him for shooting the three less — it’s a sign of intelligence on his part — it might help our spacing if he starting taking more of them again, whether or not he made them frequently. (The better solution, of course, is to just make him a small forward again, but we’ve been down that road.)
Ladies and gentlemen, your Golden State Worriers.
Two things I havent seen mentioned
1) Monta scores more points in the paint than everyone except Kobe. A smallball team does need to shoot more threes, but when you have a guy who can get to the hoop like Monta you are going to take the easy points. It is one of the fatal flaws of the system because how do you turn down a layup and possible 3pt play in exchange for a pass to a 3pt shooter? No coach would ever do that, but it can hurt the ability of a small ball team to win.
Remember, hitting 50% of your threes is like shooting 75% from 2pt range.
2) The Warriors do not make an effort to grab offensive rebounds. This is not a smallball issue, it is a bad defense issue. The team has to get back on defense ASAP because Monta is often in the paint instead of at the point ready to stop the break. Also, we have no great defenders, so we need to send more people back than a strong defensive team to cover the margin of error. If we were able to win more offensive rebounds we would create a huge opportunity to score more points. 6 or 8 more points through rebounds would be a major improvement for us.
I think smallball is like communism. You will never see a true example of it long enough to find out if it works. In a communist society, people always get greedy and the system breaks down as people try to beat/cheat the system. On a smallball team, coaches will always break the system when they have a chance to get easy points in an alternate manner (like PG layups). If Nellie forced Monta to limit his scoring drives versus drive and kicks to a specific percentage this may be an entirely different conversation.
by warriorsvictim on Jan 5, 2010 11:24 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
Smallball is like Communism…
It requires that you fight all your rational impulses and become satisfied with a lower standard of living, despite all the evidence that there are much, much better systems being used to great effect in other places. By the way, rec’d.
Sittin in my scraper watchin Oakland goin wild, ta-dow!
+1 LOL
The comparisons between communism and smallball are endless, but Nellie is hardly the Stalin of the NBA
by warriorsvictim on Jan 5, 2010 4:05 PM PST up reply actions
more like kim jong il
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jan 5, 2010 5:11 PM PST up reply actions
Great Post
Nelly is an awful head coach who doesn’t coach defense, and he needs to be fired a.s.a.p. Smallball, or any kind of ball, will never work if you continue to allow the other team to score over 110 points every game. The dub’s season average entering tonight? 112 points (approximately 5 more than what they score), which is currently worst in the NBA. Defense is the issue and always has been, but unfortunately, it’s the least of Nelson’s concerns when talking about his team’s struggles.
Any head coach who delegates “defensive coaching” to his/her assistant should be fired on the spot. This isn’t football where you have your offensive coordinator and defensive coordinator. Nellie pretty much “gave up” the day he decided to hand over the defensive duties to Keith Smart. Simply put, Nellie is awful and has become a joke.
Onlxn, you did a great job dissecting smallball. Now, it’s up to somebody to dissect the stupid minds who run this Warriors franchise.
by Waiting4JoshMorgan on Jan 6, 2010 8:28 PM PST reply actions
I forgot to add
The more and more I watch Nellie-ball, the more and more I appreciate the San Antonio Spurs. Their brand of basketball may look boring to the average fan, but to an avid fan who understands the game, it’s beautiful.
I can’t believe I actually said that, but that’s what Nellie has done to me. His awfulness makes me appreciate other aspects of the game so much more. I can’t wait ’til he leaves so I can see what Keith Smart can do.
by Waiting4JoshMorgan on Jan 6, 2010 8:35 PM PST reply actions
i watched game 6 of the 2007 playoffs against dallas today
and completely fell in love with this team again.
then i remembered, oh yeah, they got away from everything that made them fun to watch in the past. that team was soooo good. it pains me to think of how they broke up that team…
by baron davis' beard on Jan 9, 2010 5:05 PM PST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
"UNSTOPPABLE BABY!"
Golden State Warriors rookie Marc Jackson to the Mavericks' bench, after hitting a lay-up during a 29-point loss (2000)
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
Most Commented
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Days of NBA Lives: Wherein Roy Hibbert tap-dances to Maine
- Grizzlies Valentine’s Day cards are the key to love
- Kevin Love would like the NBA to take the MLB’s approach on All-Star games
- Kobe Bryant fires a few hilarious salvos at Jeremy Lin
- Brandon Jennings states the obvious regarding his 2014 free agency, everyone goes nuts
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
