Thinking Basketball Podcast: The best off-ball players of the 3 point era

[Somebody]

https://soundcloud.com/thinkingbasketball/52-the-best-off-ball-players-of-the-3-point-era

This podcast is a continuation of the YouTube video a few days ago, it goes more in depth about great off ball players and concepts about off ball value (eg. both horizontal and vertical spacing). Before some people go ballistic over some player mentioned in the podcast, I implore you to just listen to the entire podcast before screaming "LOL nope!".

[Who]

Who were the players mentioned?

[Somebody]

Who were the players mentioned?

10. Young Dirk Nowitzki (Nash/Finley/Dirk era)
9. Anthony Davis
8. JJ Reddick
7. Peja Stojakovic
6. Rip Hamilton
5. Klay Thompson
4. Ray Allen
3. Larry Bird
2. Reggie Miller
1. Stephen Curry

Speaking of the players mentioned, thoughts on Larry Bird being classified as an "off-ball player"? The podcast emphasised that a good part of his game was on ball, but his offence was primarily powered by off ball movement that was amplified by his on ball wizardry. It was a point of contention for some posters here regarding Thinking Basketball's content, so I wanted to know where a person like you who does a bunch of film analysis stands on this topic.

[KGs Knee]

Players can be both on and off ball threats. There's no need to force players who at excel at both aspects into being pigeon-holed as one or the other.

[Somebody]

Players can be both on and off ball threats. There's no need to force players who at excel at both aspects into being pigeon-holed as one or the other.

Agreed. People go crazy when someone points out a great on/off-ball hybrid as a great off ball player who primarily uses movement to set up defences though.

[KGs Knee]

Players can be both on and off ball threats. There's no need to force players who at excel at both aspects into being pigeon-holed as one or the other.

Agreed. People go crazy when someone points out a great on/off-ball hybrid as a great off ball player who primarily uses movement to set up defences though.

That's just so bizarre to me. Do people think that being a capable off-ball player makes you less of an on-ball player? I have to assume these are people that don't understand what nuance is.

[Csfan1984]

Haven't reviewed it yet but is like screen guys that roll or pick and pop considered off the ball or was it shooters? Because Duncan, Aldridge, both Gasols, and other bigs are huge impacts on an offense when technically the ball isn't in their hands.

[Who]

Who were the players mentioned?

10. Young Dirk Nowitzki (Nash/Finley/Dirk era)
9. Anthony Davis
8. JJ Reddick
7. Peja Stojakovic
6. Rip Hamilton
5. Klay Thompson
4. Ray Allen
3. Larry Bird
2. Reggie Miller
1. Stephen Curry

Speaking of the players mentioned, thoughts on Larry Bird being classified as an "off-ball player"? The podcast emphasised that a good part of his game was on ball, but his offence was primarily powered by off ball movement that was amplified by his on ball wizardry. It was a point of contention for some posters here regarding Thinking Basketball's content, so I wanted to know where a person like you who does a bunch of film analysis stands on this topic.

I reckon it is more of a generational thing. In the past (80s, 90s) calling someone an off-ball player was as much an insult as a compliment. Meaning (1) yeah, he is great at moving without the ball, but, (2) he can't do squat with the ball.

You never called a player an off-ball player if that player had an on-ball game as well.

Take Michael Jordan. Very good off the ball. Uses screens well. Great cutter. Combines well with players around him. But you would never call him an off-ball player because his on-ball game as so lethal. To call him an off-ball player would be an insult (in the past anyway - maybe that is changing, I am not sure).

Ditto with Larry Bird. He was a fantastic isolation player, mid-post and low post threat. To call him an off-ball player - to many people - is to dismiss his quality on the ball.

Then take someone like Reggie Miller. Brilliant without the basketball but limited with it. Whenever Indiana's offense broke down late in the clock they desperately needed someone they could throw the ball to in order to create something but Reggie was unable to be that man. And it was something they lacked for most of 90s. When they made in the Finals in 2000, they had Jalen Rose as a starter and a 18-20ppg threat who could give them some of that shot creation / playmaker on-ball.

So when Reggie is called an off-ball player, it is both a compliment and an insult.

To call Bird the same is to ignore his quality on the ball as a creator (Dirk-like).

---------------------------

From what I can tell here in the forums, it is more semantics.

People saying the same thing but using different words to describe it. Not always realizing they are saying the same thing - just differently.

Rather than disagreement.

Most of the time anyway.

[Somebody]

Haven't reviewed it yet but is like screen guys that roll or pick and pop considered off the ball or was it shooters? Because Duncan, Aldridge, both Gasols, and other bigs are huge impacts on an offense when technically the ball isn't in their hands.

Both. And Duncan had alright off ball value thanks to his elite offensive rebounding and good finishing skills, but his isolationist game and mediocre passing during his prime (emphasis on during his prime, he became a nice complementary piece as he aged as he continued to grow as a passer) didn't make him a great player in this exercise. Here's a full player analysis of Duncan by the same person who made this podcast: https://backpicks.com/2018/03/22/backpicks-goat-7-tim-duncan/

As for LMA/the Gasol brothers, they weren't good enough vertical spacers (lob threats/rim runners) to be in this conversation - bigs need have most of the following attributes to even be in this conversation: good offensive rebounding, strong vertical finishing, decent or better three point spacing and extra connective tissue passing.

[DefenseWinsChamps]

I agree with other posters. DeAndre Jordan was mostly off-ball, as well as Tyson Chandler for the Mavs, and they had enormous gravity offense. Their teams offensive ratings were as high or higher than any other player on this list.

I'd also include players like Wade, Durant, Manu, Redd, Rashard Lewis, and more.

It's a good list and an interesting conversation.

[Roy H.]

Players can be both on and off ball threats. There's no need to force players who at excel at both aspects into being pigeon-holed as one or the other.

Agreed. People go crazy when someone points out a great on/off-ball hybrid as a great off ball player who primarily uses movement to set up defences though.

That's just so bizarre to me. Do people think that being a capable off-ball player makes you less of an on-ball player? I have to assume these are people that don't understand what nuance is.

I think people just think it’s silly when you stick a label on someone like Bird as an “off-ball player”.  He wasn’t.  He was a primary all-around offensive player.  Of course he moved without the ball and was dangerous as a decoy; all great players do this.

It’s the label, not the skillset. 

[Donoghus]

Players can be both on and off ball threats. There's no need to force players who at excel at both aspects into being pigeon-holed as one or the other.

Agreed. People go crazy when someone points out a great on/off-ball hybrid as a great off ball player who primarily uses movement to set up defences though.

That's just so bizarre to me. Do people think that being a capable off-ball player makes you less of an on-ball player? I have to assume these are people that don't understand what nuance is.

I think people just think it’s silly when you stick a label on someone like Bird as an “off-ball player”.  He wasn’t.  He was a primary all-around offensive player.  Of course he moved without the ball and was dangerous as a decoy; all great players do this.

It’s the label, not the skillset.

I'd agree with this.

[Somebody]

Who were the players mentioned?

10. Young Dirk Nowitzki (Nash/Finley/Dirk era)
9. Anthony Davis
8. JJ Reddick
7. Peja Stojakovic
6. Rip Hamilton
5. Klay Thompson
4. Ray Allen
3. Larry Bird
2. Reggie Miller
1. Stephen Curry

Speaking of the players mentioned, thoughts on Larry Bird being classified as an "off-ball player"? The podcast emphasised that a good part of his game was on ball, but his offence was primarily powered by off ball movement that was amplified by his on ball wizardry. It was a point of contention for some posters here regarding Thinking Basketball's content, so I wanted to know where a person like you who does a bunch of film analysis stands on this topic.

I reckon it is more of a generational thing. In the past (80s, 90s) calling someone an off-ball player was as much an insult as a compliment. Meaning (1) yeah, he is great at moving without the ball, but, (2) he can't do squat with the ball.

You never called a player an off-ball player if that player had an on-ball game as well.

Take Michael Jordan. Very good off the ball. Uses screens well. Great cutter. Combines well with players around him. But you would never call him an off-ball player because his on-ball game as so lethal. To call him an off-ball player would be an insult (in the past anyway - maybe that is changing, I am not sure).

Ditto with Larry Bird. He was a fantastic isolation player, mid-post and low post threat. To call him an off-ball player - to many people - is to dismiss his quality on the ball.

Then take someone like Reggie Miller. Brilliant without the basketball but limited with it. Whenever Indiana's offense broke down late in the clock they desperately needed someone they could throw the ball to in order to create something but Reggie was unable to be that man. And it was something they lacked for most of 90s. When they made in the Finals in 2000, they had Jalen Rose as a starter and a 18-20ppg threat who could give them some of that shot creation / playmaker on-ball.

So when Reggie is called an off-ball player, it is both a compliment and an insult.

To call Bird the same is to ignore his quality on the ball as a creator (Dirk-like).

---------------------------

From what I can tell here in the forums, it is more semantics.

People saying the same thing but using different words to describe it. Not always realizing they are saying the same thing - just differently.

Rather than disagreement.

Most of the time anyway.

Ah okay, thanks for the explanation. And iirc Jordan isn't called an off-ball player by people in more modern communities because he mainly initiated his offence through creating with the ball instead of constantly cutting and moving to probe the defence by the time he hit his best years under Phil Jackson ('88 and '89 were prime years by Jordan, but the majority of his prime was spent playing in the triangle), while Bird had a significant chunk of his offence initiated by off-ball movement - kind of like Curry nowadays. I agree that Bird was a wizard on the ball though, his ability to make elite passes and a variety of shots off the move was incredible without even mentioning his bread and butter post game.

Btw was Miller really the problem in Indiana? The Pacer offences he led were consistently elite throughout his prime, and they were incredibly tough outs no matter what round they were ousted. He also improved in the playoffs throughout his career, driving up his volume and efficiency against elite defences when his team needed him the most:

Miller’s three-year peak scoring is a level below Allen Iverson and George Gervin, but their efficiency pales in comparison to Reggie’s. Fittingly, Ray Allen, the player most historically linked with Miller, matches Miller’s efficiency with nearly an identical shape.

However, something remarkable happened in the playoffs. In the Second Season, most stars see a slight decline in their numbers, the result of facing harder defenses that game plan for them. But Miller shows (perhaps) the greatest improvement from regular season to postseason of any notable player in history. His scoring spikes with no drop in his efficiency. So, despite more modest regular season numbers, Miller’s prime scoring rates in the playoffs were in the 97th percentile, comparable to rates from prime Kareem Adbul-Jabbar, Julius Erving and Larry Bird, all while maintaining his elite efficiency.
https://backpicks.com/2018/01/18/backpicks-goat-29-reggie-miller/

I get that he wasn't a wizard on the ball like Jordan and Bird, but imo his dynamic off ball movement was so difficult to defend when he ramped up his aggressiveness come playoff time that any problems with the team not winning titles was more [dang]ing on his supporting cast rather than him as a player. He wasn't an offensive juggernaut due to his passing limitations and poor handle (which does give credence to your point that Indy lacked a guy who can create offence for his teammates on the ball, he certainly couldn't do that), but he could definitely provide elite crunch time scoring when his team needed a bucket in the clutch - he just needed a decent passer who could make a wide open pass after he created an opening with his off-ball movement and I think a good number of players (eg. Isiah Thomas) have mentioned how good he was in crunch time to save his Pacer squads if you want more anecdotal evidence from people who knew the game back then. Here's the Thinking Basketball video on off-ball movement, which raises the idea that dynamic off-ball movement combined with incredible shot making (basically Miller's scoring package) might be just as hard to guard as excellent on-ball scoring. https://youtu.be/QUZr26cpR8w

[Somebody]

Players can be both on and off ball threats. There's no need to force players who at excel at both aspects into being pigeon-holed as one or the other.

Agreed. People go crazy when someone points out a great on/off-ball hybrid as a great off ball player who primarily uses movement to set up defences though.

That's just so bizarre to me. Do people think that being a capable off-ball player makes you less of an on-ball player? I have to assume these are people that don't understand what nuance is.

I think people just think it’s silly when you stick a label on someone like Bird as an “off-ball player”.  He wasn’t.  He was a primary all-around offensive player.  Of course he moved without the ball and was dangerous as a decoy; all great players do this.

It’s the label, not the skillset.

I'd agree with this.

Yeah fair point. I didn't grow up in the isoball/deadball era so I don't really understand how [dang]ing the label is to older guys in this forum - I see the label as a massive compliment if the player is also known for his on ball capabilities, it basically means that player is an incredibly portable offensive piece who can provide excellent offensive value in a variety of setups.

[Somebody]

I agree with other posters. DeAndre Jordan was mostly off-ball, as well as Tyson Chandler for the Mavs, and they had enormous gravity offense. Their teams offensive ratings were as high or higher than any other player on this list.

I'd also include players like Wade, Durant, Manu, Redd, Rashard Lewis, and more.

It's a good list and an interesting conversation.

DaJ and Chandler pretty much only had vertical spacing and offensive rebounding going for them though, the bigs on the list were good to great in a number of off ball categories for bigs or were a wing-big hybrid. Durant was an honorary mention iirc and Wade likely didn't play off the ball enough to make the list, he was primarily an on ball engine. Think Redd and Lewis weren't dynamic enough with their off-ball movement to overtake the perimeter players in the list. But yeah there are a good number of players who can stake a claim on this list, it's a great topic.