Even the Warriors Aren't Small Anymore

[PhoSita]

Small ball is all the rage, right?  That's what the Warriors have done to the league: small ball, pace and space, threes threes threes.

Let's take a quick look at the top teams in the league.


The Warriors feature seven foot Kevin Durant and 6'11'' Demarcus Cousins in their starting lineup.  Not to mention all the backup 4/5s on their bench.


Milwaukee has a 6'11'' wrecking ball as their primary playmaker.  Additionally they have a seven foot starting center and two 6'10'' backup bigs who can play 4 or 5 and shoot.

Toronto has Ibaka and Siakam, both 6'9'' / 6'10'' and long as anything, and additionally they've got 7'1'' Marc Gasol coming off the bench.

Denver is built around a 7' behemoth with all the skills of a guard, and they've got Paul Millsap, Mason Plumlee, and Trey Lyles backing him up.  Not to mention 6'10'' Juancho Hernangomez.

Indiana -- 6'11'' Myles Turner and 6'11'' Domantas Sabonis, doing work down low.  Add to that Thad Young, an undersized player who has made a career out of physical play inside, and Kyle O'Quinn, who is similarly undersized but rough and tumble.

Philly -- Embiid, gargantuan.  Now they've got Boban backing him up, who is somehow even bigger.

OKC -- Steven Adams is a 7' beast inside, they've got Nerlens Noel backing him up, and Jeremy Grant is a hyperathletic, long 6'9''.



And of course Portland -- we just got an up close and personal look at the Jusuf Nurkic / Enes Kanter combo.



I could keep going.



My point is -- the Celtics have a starting lineup featuring nobody over 6'9''.  They've got two small forwards and an undersized big who, for all his many skills, has never been a major inside presence.

Heading into the year the thought was that versatility was going to be the major trump card for the Celts.  They were so versatile!

But looking around the league, is it maybe the case that having at least one, ideally multiple big men with serious size and interior presence is like, important, or something? 

Seems to me that all of the really good teams have plenty of size.


Heading into the season the lack of big man depth on the Celts made some sense in the context of "Well the league is going small anyway."  But it seems like maybe that actually isn't true.

It seems like maybe having no reliable big men other than Horford (a bit undersized) and Baynes (injury prone, not a starting-minutes guy) is a major design flaw of this roster.


This is how we end up in a situation where Baynes missing a couple months is an outright disaster.

[Monkhouse]

Yeah I hate how people mention small-ball as a strategic option for us to emulate..

The Heat got by with Bosh at Center, due to having a dominant Wade/LeBron, and plenty of role players who knew their purpose and role. GSW got by with Draymond at 4 or 5 occasionally, (one of the best post/perimeter defenders in the league at the time,) while surviving and dying by the 3 from one of the greatest shooting back-courts in the history of the NBA.

[otherdave]

Agreed- "small ball" is a misnomer.  I think Brad said about a year ago that ideally he wants to play tall, fast with pace and space.  I think a more accurate phrase in terms of coach speak would be "fast & space ball".  I  think one of the implications of this style is that no team wants a big lumbering center like Artis Gilmore or Bob Lanier anymore.  Of course now I age myself. 

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

I agree. I have LONG wanted the Cs to get some legit size and interior presence, but alas, Danny and Brad seem to want almost nothing to do with such players. Some people on CS have said that legit bigs don't grow on trees, but they're growing somewhere, because a lot of other teams have them. Being able to go small is nice, but we shouldn't be locked into it.

Then again, as I wrote in another thread yesterday, the Cs seem like they don't want to make any adjustments in any area—they don't want to adjust when the threes aren't falling, they don't want to consistently exploit individual matchup advantages, and they don't adjust to their opponents (something the Patriots have done with GREAT success).

The Celtics, under Rivers and now Stevens, have never emphasized offensive rebounding, yet every time they play a team that DOES emphasize it, the Cs get killed. And every time they play a team with great size, they get killed.

When will it end?

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

Yeah I hate how people mention small-ball as a strategic option for us to emulate..

The Heat got by with Bosh at Center, due to having a dominant Wade/LeBron, and plenty of role players who knew their purpose and role. GSW got by with Draymond at 4 or 5 occasionally, (one of the best post/perimeter defenders in the league at the time,) while surviving and dying by the 3 from one of the greatest shooting back-courts in the history of the NBA.

Yeah, I've said this many times—those champion Heat and Warriors teams won the way they did because they have all-time greats, and no other team is likely to win with a small lineup or by jacking so many threes.

[CelticsElite]

Which is why Ainge is going to trade for Davis

In the mean time, enjoy the small ball

[PhoSita]

Which is why Ainge is going to trade for Davis

In the mean time, enjoy the small ball

"Enjoy"

[The Oracle]

The idea behind small ball is to exploit opposing slow big men without being to small yourself to be significantly exploited on the other end.  The goal should always be to stay as big as possible while maintaining the ability to play like you are small. 

The ideal lineup in today's NBA is 5 guys that are 6'8+ who can all shoot and play make as well as be interchangeable defensively.  Kanter, Cousins, Gasol and Boban are not the answer and won't truly help their teams come playoff time.

[petbrick]

Agreed- "small ball" is a misnomer.  I think Brad said about a year ago that ideally he wants to play tall, fast with pace and space.  I think a more accurate phrase in terms of coach speak would be "fast & space ball".  I  think one of the implications of this style is that no team wants a big lumbering center like Artis Gilmore or Bob Lanier anymore.  Of course now I age myself. 

Bingo. "Small ball", boiled down is referred to essentially making your four and five play more like Amar'e and Marion than, say, Duncan and Robinson.

If you want a more recent example, check out Roy Hibbert's career. Remember how recently everyone was going on about "Verticality"?

[CFAN38]

Agreed- "small ball" is a misnomer.  I think Brad said about a year ago that ideally he wants to play tall, fast with pace and space.  I think a more accurate phrase in terms of coach speak would be "fast & space ball".  I  think one of the implications of this style is that no team wants a big lumbering center like Artis Gilmore or Bob Lanier anymore.  Of course now I age myself. 

I agree that "small ball" is miss understood. The pre Durant Warriors went with a " small ball" aka death lineup that didn't feature a player over 6'8 but only for short periods of time.

The real key to the modern NBA is to put as much length of the court as possible using all players who are capable of consistently shooting 3s. Add that along with a perimeter player who can create his own shot and you have the basic blue print for a successful NBA team. 

[PhoSita]

The idea behind small ball is to exploit opposing slow big men without being to small yourself to be significantly exploited on the other end.  The goal should always be to stay as big as possible while maintaining the ability to play like you are small. 

The ideal lineup in today's NBA is 5 guys that are 6'8+ who can all shoot and play make as well as be interchangeable defensively.  Kanter, Cousins, Gasol and Boban are not the answer and won't truly help their teams come playoff time.

I know perfectly well what the idea behind small ball is.


But as I reviewed in my original post, most of the best teams in the league make use of a lot of fairly traditional big men.  Yes, many more big men shoot threes now than in the past.  But there is quite obviously still a place for having multiple 6'10'' - 7'' guys in your rotation who play like bigs rather than guards  or wings.

The Celtics are severely lacking in bigs.  Yes, they have several players over 6'8'' who can put the ball on the floor and shoot.  What they lack is guys who are 6'10''+ who can set screens, do work inside, etc.


I don't think hardly anybody is building their offense around a back to the basket presence.  The league has clearly moved away from that style of play.  But big men are still crucial to building a consistent, reliable NBA offense and a stout defense.

[Chris22]

And Brad continues to refuse to play Williams as bigger players shoot layup after layup over Horford.

[The Oracle]

The idea behind small ball is to exploit opposing slow big men without being to small yourself to be significantly exploited on the other end.  The goal should always be to stay as big as possible while maintaining the ability to play like you are small. 

The ideal lineup in today's NBA is 5 guys that are 6'8+ who can all shoot and play make as well as be interchangeable defensively.  Kanter, Cousins, Gasol and Boban are not the answer and won't truly help their teams come playoff time.

I know perfectly well what the idea behind small ball is.


But as I reviewed in my original post, most of the best teams in the league make use of a lot of fairly traditional big men.  Yes, many more big men shoot threes now than in the past.  But there is quite obviously still a place for having multiple 6'10'' - 7'' guys in your rotation who play like bigs rather than guards  or wings.

The Celtics are severely lacking in bigs.  Yes, they have several players over 6'8'' who can put the ball on the floor and shoot.  What they lack is guys who are 6'10''+ who can set screens, do work inside, etc.


I don't think hardly anybody is building their offense around a back to the basket presence.  The league has clearly moved away from that style of play.  But big men are still crucial to building a consistent, reliable NBA offense and a stout defense.

It is an extremely difficult balance to find as far as big men go.  There just aren't many big men who aren't either exploitable defensively or a significant negative on offense.  It is why you see teams like G.S. playing big men who are next to useless offensively (as they don't need them on that end as much) but are very active defensively.  Every team is in search of the same thing but ideal big men are like unicorns. 

[PhoSita]

We're not talking about "ideal" big men though.  Yes there are "unicorns" out there like Jokic and Towns and guys who are paid a lot for what they are, like Millsap.  But useful big men aren't that rare.

Lopez, Ilyasova, Mirotic, Ibaka, Siakam, Gasol, Turner, Sabonis, Boban, Adams, Noel, Grant, Plumlee, Lyles, Harrell, Zubac, Gobert, Favors, Nurkic, Kanter, Collins, Leonard ...

I mean, my point here is that most of the other really competitive teams in the league have at least a few productive big men with good size filling out their rotation.  The Celtics have one -- Horford -- who is somewhat undersized and plays more of a perimeter role now.  The only other reliable big man is Baynes, who is solid when he's healthy but has been relatively injury prone in his career. 


The Bucks are a team you could look at and say, well, they have size but most of their bigs are perimeter oriented.  They're the best or second best team in the league.  The thing there is they have a 6'11'' point guard (basically) who grabs double digit rebounds and game and scores at will inside. 


The Celts' main scorer is a 6'3'' acrobat who relies heavily on jumpshots.  The two man game between Kyrie and Horford is a really nice element to the offense.  Horford and Smart work their butts off to make the defense work.

It would all function much more smoothly on both ends if they had some bigs who could set a hard screen, box out, etc.  Because it's Brad's offense they need bigs who can also execute handoffs and hit an open mid range jumper, but it's not THAT hard to find guys who can do that.

In fact, there's at least one guy who fits that description who is currently a free agent (Tyler Zeller).  Still not sure why the team has never bothered to pick him up.

I'd much rather have Zeller on the team than Yabu.

[KGs Knee]

All of this is why I hope when Baynes returns he is inserted into the starting lineup.  Boston desperately needs his size.