Brad Stevens tried to reinvent basketball. He's wrong.

[Vermont Green]

This debate is drifting into new territory.  One debate seems to be whether or not you need a true Center alongside of a true PF vs. two interchangeable but legit bigs.  I don’t see any problem with this.  Many teams play two bigs where it is not clear who is the center and who is the PF.  But most teams do still play most of the time with two bigs.  That to me is not small ball and I see no problem to play with 2 interchangeable bigs where neither is really a traditional center.

Now what is getting talked about a lot here is the idea to play with only one real big, 3 wings, and a PG (the Walker-Brown-Hayward-Tatum-Kanter line up).  That is something altogether different in my mind.  Tatum and Kanter is a whole lot smaller than Morris and Horford; not necessarily measured in inches of height but overall size, strength, and style of play.  Playing with 3 wings plus a PG and a Big is playing small ball and if we play too much of that I predict we will get killed.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

Brad didn't reinvent anything, he simply hopped aboard the Trend Train, which in its current iteration is to keep throwing up 3s, even when you're not making them. He needs to diversity the team's offense.

[Fafnir]

This debate is drifting into new territory.  One debate seems to be whether or not you need a true Center alongside of a true PF vs. two interchangeable but legit bigs.  I don’t see any problem with this.  Many teams play two bigs where it is not clear who is the center and who is the PF.  But most teams do still play most of the time with two bigs.  That to me is not small ball and I see no problem to play with 2 interchangeable bigs where neither is really a traditional center.

I don't think its all that common, simply because most teams lack two bigs who are interchangeable.

The reason the NBA is downsizing is that its become necessary for both forwards on the court to be able to guard on the perimeter and shoot the ball. There isn't a big supply of players who can do that at 6' 10" and above (traditional NBA big man size)

You can have 1 non-shooter on the court (though not ideal), 2 is death to your offense. (this is what happened to the Bucks when Bledsoe turned into a pumpkin)

[Vermont Green]

This debate is drifting into new territory.  One debate seems to be whether or not you need a true Center alongside of a true PF vs. two interchangeable but legit bigs.  I don’t see any problem with this.  Many teams play two bigs where it is not clear who is the center and who is the PF.  But most teams do still play most of the time with two bigs.  That to me is not small ball and I see no problem to play with 2 interchangeable bigs where neither is really a traditional center.

I don't think its all that common, simply because most teams lack two bigs who are interchangeable.

The reason the NBA is downsizing is that its become necessary for both forwards on the court to be able to guard on the perimeter and shoot the ball. There isn't a big supply of players who can do that at 6' 10" and above (traditional NBA big man size)

You can have 1 non-shooter on the court (though not ideal), 2 is death to your offense. (this is what happened to the Bucks when Bledsoe turned into a pumpkin)

I just look at the 82games 5 man unit numbers and it is pretty clear that all of the better teams play the majority with two legit bigs (Toronto, GSW, Portland, Mil, Denver to name a few).  Indiana played Thad Young as their main 2nd big so you could argue he is a small big.  The one notable exception was Houston, their primary second big was Tucker.  I think Houston would have played a bigger second big if they could have.

Small ball is not winning.  Teams are forced to play this way.  Yes, teams are investing more into their wings and scorers in general as that is what is needed.  You don't necessarily want your bigs to be your stars and take up a big chunk of the cap, although I am sure that MIL is not complaining.  But most of the better teams play two solid bigs most of the time.

[Fafnir]

Small ball is not winning.  Teams are forced to play this way.

I think you need to examine your internal logic if you are writing these two sentences, how are teams forced to play this way? If "small ball" doesn't win what force is making teams make such poor decisions?

Of the better teams how many of them start two non-shooters? GSW with Draymond + Whomever, Philly with Embiid + Simmons (kinda Embiid is an edge case) and that's it. Its not about big or small really, its about how much shooting can you bring to the table while guarding sufficiently.

Guys like Al-Farouq Aminu and Marcus Morris are now PFs instead of SFs like they were when they started their career? Small ball wins, and has been consistently winning for years now. The NBA has literally redefined what a PF is over the past 5 to 6 years. Paul Milsap used to be an undersized PF when he started his career, now he's an example of tradition winning out...

[Csfan1984]

I see some good counter post to each of the sides.

 I'd like to add something that may be in the middle. That I like to think having two guys focused on other things other than scoring is a plus, there is only one ball after all. Maybe that is a reason "traditional" teams worked in the past. A chemistry and energy dynamic that carries the team in offense, defense and transition game. We know high level offensive and defensive players usually only dominate one side of the game and exert a lot of energy to do it. So maybe you need a balanced team in regards to roles and not simply scorers at every position. I was for trading Rozier and Morris at deadline for defense first players because I thought the team needed more balance and less guys trying to score. In the end I feel I was right in that belief. I for one worry this team as is is still lacking. It doesn't have to be a 6'10 PF or a 6'8 Swing player for me. Just give me the balance on the court and I'm sure the team would be effective.

[mobilija]

I see some good counter post to each of the sides.

 I'd like to add something that may be in the middle. That I like to think having two guys focused on other things other than scoring is a plus, there is only one ball after all. Maybe that is a reason "traditional" teams worked in the past. A chemistry and energy dynamic that carries the team in offense, defense and transition game. We know high level offensive and defensive players usually only dominate one side of the game and exert a lot of energy to do it. So maybe you need a balanced team in regards to roles and not simply scorers at every position. I was for trading Rozier and Morris at deadline for defense first players because I thought the team needed more balance and less guys trying to score. In the end I feel I was right in that belief. I for one worry this team as is is still lacking. It doesn't have to be a 6'10 PF or a 6'8 Swing player for me. Just give me the balance on the court and I'm sure the team would be effective.

I’m with you! TP
Let’s redefine the positions...
Shot makers, play makers, stop makers and opportunity makers.
Some players may be two of those. Give me a good mix of these positions at various sizes and we’re good to go!

[RockinRyA]

This debate is drifting into new territory.  One debate seems to be whether or not you need a true Center alongside of a true PF vs. two interchangeable but legit bigs.  I don’t see any problem with this.  Many teams play two bigs where it is not clear who is the center and who is the PF.  But most teams do still play most of the time with two bigs.  That to me is not small ball and I see no problem to play with 2 interchangeable bigs where neither is really a traditional center.

I don't think its all that common, simply because most teams lack two bigs who are interchangeable.

The reason the NBA is downsizing is that its become necessary for both forwards on the court to be able to guard on the perimeter and shoot the ball. There isn't a big supply of players who can do that at 6' 10" and above (traditional NBA big man size)

You can have 1 non-shooter on the court (though not ideal), 2 is death to your offense. (this is what happened to the Bucks when Bledsoe turned into a pumpkin)

I just look at the 82games 5 man unit numbers and it is pretty clear that all of the better teams play the majority with two legit bigs (Toronto, GSW, Portland, Mil, Denver to name a few).  Indiana played Thad Young as their main 2nd big so you could argue he is a small big.  The one notable exception was Houston, their primary second big was Tucker.  I think Houston would have played a bigger second big if they could have.

Small ball is not winning.  Teams are forced to play this way.  Yes, teams are investing more into their wings and scorers in general as that is what is needed.  You don't necessarily want your bigs to be your stars and take up a big chunk of the cap, although I am sure that MIL is not complaining.  But most of the better teams play two solid bigs most of the time.

Lol some of the teams you mentioned played people at the "big" position who wouldve been classified as SF 20 years ago. Giannis, Millsap, Durant etc wouldve been classified as SF years ago. Heck giannis and durant played sf during their rookie years.

Ibaka is a different case because while he can play the traditional PF position, he has shooting that makes him valuable in todays game.

[Wretch]

I can't wait until there's actual basketball to watch.

[liam]

I can't wait until there's actual basketball to watch.

TP

[Somebody]

This debate is drifting into new territory.  One debate seems to be whether or not you need a true Center alongside of a true PF vs. two interchangeable but legit bigs.  I don’t see any problem with this.  Many teams play two bigs where it is not clear who is the center and who is the PF.  But most teams do still play most of the time with two bigs.  That to me is not small ball and I see no problem to play with 2 interchangeable bigs where neither is really a traditional center.

I don't think its all that common, simply because most teams lack two bigs who are interchangeable.

The reason the NBA is downsizing is that its become necessary for both forwards on the court to be able to guard on the perimeter and shoot the ball. There isn't a big supply of players who can do that at 6' 10" and above (traditional NBA big man size)

You can have 1 non-shooter on the court (though not ideal), 2 is death to your offense. (this is what happened to the Bucks when Bledsoe turned into a pumpkin)

I just look at the 82games 5 man unit numbers and it is pretty clear that all of the better teams play the majority with two legit bigs (Toronto, GSW, Portland, Mil, Denver to name a few).  Indiana played Thad Young as their main 2nd big so you could argue he is a small big.  The one notable exception was Houston, their primary second big was Tucker.  I think Houston would have played a bigger second big if they could have.

Small ball is not winning.  Teams are forced to play this way.  Yes, teams are investing more into their wings and scorers in general as that is what is needed.  You don't necessarily want your bigs to be your stars and take up a big chunk of the cap, although I am sure that MIL is not complaining.  But most of the better teams play two solid bigs most of the time.

Lol some of the teams you mentioned played people at the "big" position who wouldve been classified as SF 20 years ago. Giannis, Millsap, Durant etc wouldve been classified as SF years ago. Heck giannis and durant played sf during their rookie years.

Ibaka is a different case because while he can play the traditional PF position, he has shooting that makes him valuable in todays game.

I think this year's iteration of Giannis would've been slotted in at C 20 years ago ala David Robinson, while Durant would've played both forward positions. Both of them grew after their rookie seasons from 6'9 to 7 feet. Millsap screams PF to me btw in the mold of a bulky forward ala Oakley.

[Somebody]

I see some good counter post to each of the sides.

 I'd like to add something that may be in the middle. That I like to think having two guys focused on other things other than scoring is a plus, there is only one ball after all. Maybe that is a reason "traditional" teams worked in the past. A chemistry and energy dynamic that carries the team in offense, defense and transition game. We know high level offensive and defensive players usually only dominate one side of the game and exert a lot of energy to do it. So maybe you need a balanced team in regards to roles and not simply scorers at every position. I was for trading Rozier and Morris at deadline for defense first players because I thought the team needed more balance and less guys trying to score. In the end I feel I was right in that belief. I for one worry this team as is is still lacking. It doesn't have to be a 6'10 PF or a 6'8 Swing player for me. Just give me the balance on the court and I'm sure the team would be effective.

What you're saying is probably a low usage player who can focus on defense and the dirty work. In this case it makes even more sense to grab a swing or big who can do this, instead of a guard or wing. A low usage big man or swing draws out a rim protector or help defender by camping at the three point line as a floor spacer, while a guard or wing usually draws out a player who's already designated to defend the perimeter (unless you stick in a wing at PF, which has its own problems). A low usage guard or wing also doesn't have as many options on offense compared to a low usage big or swing, they usually can't crash the offensive glass for easy putbacks or be a roll/pop man for feeds from a ball handler to help out the offense. So yeah it makes more sense to grab a low usage big or swing that just say "we'll get any low usage player regardless of his position!".

[Vermont Green]

Small ball is not winning.  Teams are forced to play this way.

I think you need to examine your internal logic if you are writing these two sentences, how are teams forced to play this way? If "small ball" doesn't win what force is making teams make such poor decisions?

Of the better teams how many of them start two non-shooters? GSW with Draymond + Whomever, Philly with Embiid + Simmons (kinda Embiid is an edge case) and that's it. Its not about big or small really, its about how much shooting can you bring to the table while guarding sufficiently.

Guys like Al-Farouq Aminu and Marcus Morris are now PFs instead of SFs like they were when they started their career? Small ball wins, and has been consistently winning for years now. The NBA has literally redefined what a PF is over the past 5 to 6 years. Paul Milsap used to be an undersized PF when he started his career, now he's an example of tradition winning out...

The reason I say "forced to play that way" is that there are not enough good bigs around these days.  Just look at the Celtics roster.  They may be "forced" to go small because their bigs just are not that good as compared to their wings.  I think the Celtics would rather have some better bigs that they could play more.

As to the types of players that are today's big, I accept that we are talking about more skilled and more athletic players in many cases.  Draymond Green is kind of a modern day Charles Barkley but clearly play as "bigs".  And you look at Durant who is big but to me his natural position is wing and Giannis who is about the same size and who I see as a natural big and you can go anywhere you want with that.  It is not always black and white to say this guy is a big and this guy is a wing.  But if Durant were on the court with 3 wings and PG, he would have to play different game.

Line ups and minutes played are black and white though but you can always say this guy is or isn't really a big or is a modern big, not an old school big or whatever.  The Celtics last year played most of the time with 2 bigs when you consider Morris a big.  They played Baynes as much as they could.  I am sure they would have preferred to have another starting quality big.  Nearly all the best teams played most of the time with two bigs, albeit modern bigs (and for the record, I did not count Durant as a big in the case of GSW).

Teams need really skilled wings and ball handlers, no doubt, and in general, that is going to be the priority.  But no team is winning right now with just wings and BHs; you still need bigs, the more athletic and skilled the better but they have different jobs on the court.  They complete the team in different ways.  That is my theory anyway.

[Bobshot]

Viewing more  thoughtful comments, I see the game in simple terms.

I've seen all the eras--back to when the two handed set shot was popular and the ball could be "frozen" in the playoffs.
When Tommy was throwing up hook shots from the corner.

The way I see it, the bigger the player, the closer to the basket he should be playing.

Tall guys have the biggest advantage near the basket. The shorter guys play further away from the basket, and are the outside shooters. And sure, there are the 'tweener wing types. Havlicek, for example.

Most tall guys can't shoot outside. Sure there are exceptions like KD. But bye and large, the tall guys are in the best position to GET THE BALL. And getting the ball is imperative before you can do anything else.

That's why it's important to have bigs who can get the ball. And you can't get the ball caught on the perimeter setting picks for some smaller player who then shoots when you are out of position to get the ball. And to get the ball you have to be IN POSITION close to the basket. The best rebounders are those who are always in position near the basket to get the rebound. Paul Silas was an expert at it. Adams is an expert at it. Even Kanter is pretty good at it.

The  Celtics great  weakness is rebounding. If you watch a game, you can see why pretty easily. Often everybody is on the perimeter. 3P shots are frequently taken with no one near the basket. Anbd the chance of success is no more than 35-40%, often less. So you lose the ball on one shot with less than 50% chance of success.

As you move closer to the basket, the probability of hitting a shot increases. Easier shot. Tall guys near the basket usually have a high shot percentage of 50% or more. Tacko Fall has a 75% shot percentage--in college and also in the summer league. Like I've said, that's like 50% 3P shooting. Ainge knows that.

If the Celtics want to solve their major weakness, they are going to have to modify their game somewhat. Get good bigs and play them closer to the basket so they don't get caught out of position when somebody misses a long shot. And maybe even getting some easy baskets themselves. Maybe Ainge is trying to do that with all those bigs he has.

Red's winning formula has always been pass for the best shot. When the Celtics are playing well, that's what they do. When they're not, they just sit on the perimeter and it's bombs away.

[nickagneta]

Viewing more  thoughtful comments, I see the game in simple terms.

I've seen all the eras--back to when the two handed set shot was popular and the ball could be "frozen" in the playoffs.
When Tommy was throwing up hook shots from the corner.

The way I see it, the bigger the player, the closer to the basket he should be playing.

Tall guys have the biggest advantage near the basket. The shorter guys play further away from the basket, and are the outside shooters. And sure, there are the 'tweener wing types. Havlicek, for example.

Most tall guys can't shoot outside. Sure there are exceptions like KD. But bye and large, the tall guys are in the best position to GET THE BALL. And getting the ball is imperative before you can do anything else.

That's why it's important to have bigs who can get the ball. And you can't get the ball caught on the perimeter setting picks for some smaller player who then shoots when you are out of position to get the ball. And to get the ball you have to be IN POSITION close to the basket. The best rebounders are those who are always in position near the basket to get the rebound. Paul Silas was an expert at it. Adams is an expert at it. Even Kanter is pretty good at it.

The  Celtics great  weakness is rebounding. If you watch a game, you can see why pretty easily. Often everybody is on the perimeter. 3P shots are frequently taken with no one near the basket. Anbd the chance of success is no more than 35-40%, often less. So you lose the ball on one shot with less than 50% chance of success.

As you move closer to the basket, the probability of hitting a shot increases. Easier shot. Tall guys near the basket usually have a high shot percentage of 50% or more. Tacko Fall has a 75% shot percentage--in college and also in the summer league. Like I've said, that's like 50% 3P shooting. Ainge knows that.

If the Celtics want to solve their major weakness, they are going to have to modify their game somewhat. Get good bigs and play them closer to the basket so they don't get caught out of position when somebody misses a long shot. And maybe even getting some easy baskets themselves. Maybe Ainge is trying to do that with all those bigs he has.

Red's winning formula has always been pass for the best shot. When the Celtics are playing well, that's what they do. When they're not, they just sit on the perimeter and it's bombs away.

With all due respect, my friend, but the basketball you are describing is that of a era long since past. No longer is just being big and playing close to the basket a strategy on today's NBA.

For instance, you keep bringing up this Tacko Fall shooting 75% from the field is as good as a 50% three point shooter. Here is the thing: Tacko Fall is limited in his move sets, not very strong so easily moved off his spot farther from the basket, a terrible team defender in any role other than a zone where there is no 3 second rule(which doesn't exist in the NBA)and is such an atrocious free throw shooter, that he will never get a chance to shoot that 75%. His skill set is such he will never get to shoot 75% from the field for anything more than a shot or two shots a game.

Today's game is about skillset, regardless of size or where you play. The higher end players in this league, regardless of size can handle the ball, drive to the basket, pass the ball, finish strong at the rim, and shoot whether from mid range, three point range or from the line. And they can guard multiple positions on defense.

With the advent of the three point shot, players with that skillset are valuable in stretching out defenses, creating driving lanes and setting up open shots through good half court passing and ball rotation.

And, that three point shot is a weapon. To make a three pointer viable most think you have to shoot a three at over 33.3% because that equates to a 50% FG shot. Last year only 37 players shot over 50% from the field but 114 players shot over 33.3% from three.

The skill set has, for a generation, become that where three point shooting is a massive priority. You don't see kids practicing interior moves and footwork anymore. You don't see them practicing free throws. You see them practicing three pointers.

The game has changed and teams, players and the fans need to change with it because Bill, Tommy, Hondo, Bird, McHale and Parish are not stepping through that door.