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

[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.

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!

That's one way to think of it. TP back at ya.

[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.

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!".

Definitely agree with that. I'd also say given the rules of today along with the advanced pick and roll/pop that guard defenders are very more reduced in their impact if they can't score. Living with a big or swing player who is less of a scorer is more ideal because of switching and recovery with "Ice" on D. Then on offense I find bigs/swing players that look more for playing making and defense often have a better chance of slipping through a defense going for high percentage scoring opportunities. It's all about fit and system. Having a flexible system is important more so than simply following a advanced metric that says we need to switch everything and shoot as many threes as possible.

[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!".

Definitely agree with that. I'd also say given the rules of today along with the advanced pick and roll/pop that guard defenders are very more reduced in their impact if they can't score. Living with a big or swing player who is less of a scorer is more ideal because of switching and recovery with "Ice" on D. Then on offense I find bigs/swing players that look more for playing making and defense often have a better chance of slipping through a defense going for high percentage scoring opportunities. It's all about fit and system. Having a flexible system is important more so than simply following a advanced metric that says we need to switch everything and shoot as many threes as possible.

Absolutely. The main issue I have with the small ball craze in this thread is that they somehow believe that pure skill can overcome all that we mentioned lol. Speaking of how this applies to the Celtics, I'd like to see Semi start at PF with Hayward being a super sixth man to play SF or PF. He's what I described, a low usage swing who can camp in the corner, set picks, crash the glass, do the dirty work, etc. He could use a couple more inches of length but I think his strength and mobility will make him able to cover 90% of the matchups at the 4 defensively. His offense is a huge yikes though, he'll need to up his three point shooting quite a bit.

[mmmmm]

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!".

Definitely agree with that. I'd also say given the rules of today along with the advanced pick and roll/pop that guard defenders are very more reduced in their impact if they can't score. Living with a big or swing player who is less of a scorer is more ideal because of switching and recovery with "Ice" on D. Then on offense I find bigs/swing players that look more for playing making and defense often have a better chance of slipping through a defense going for high percentage scoring opportunities. It's all about fit and system. Having a flexible system is important more so than simply following a advanced metric that says we need to switch everything and shoot as many threes as possible.

Absolutely. The main issue I have with the small ball craze in this thread is that they somehow believe that pure skill can overcome all that we mentioned lol. Speaking of how this applies to the Celtics, I'd like to see Semi start at PF with Hayward being a super sixth man to play SF or PF. He's what I described, a low usage swing who can camp in the corner, set picks, crash the glass, do the dirty work, etc. He could use a couple more inches of length but I think his strength and mobility will make him able to cover 90% of the matchups at the 4 defensively. His offense is a huge yikes though, he'll need to up his three point shooting quite a bit.

Brad's offense works best (and in fact seems almost predicated on) having two play-makers on the floor at all times, one a small quick guard and one a big or large wing.   In old parlance, he likes to have both a 'point guard' and a 'point forward' on the floor at all times.

We have several play-making small guards:  Kemba, Smart, Wanamaker, Waters and hopefully/eventually Edwards.

We only have a couple of play-making forwards:  Hayward and Grant.   Grant is a rookie and is not going to be a starter.

Therefore, Hayward is almost certainly going to be starting.

The more interesting question will be what Brad does when Gordon sits.   How soon will he feel confident enough in G-Will to give him rotation minutes off the bench?   I expect until he does, he'll lean on Smart as at least a 'bigger-than-small' wing to be the larger of his two playmakers.

[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!".

Definitely agree with that. I'd also say given the rules of today along with the advanced pick and roll/pop that guard defenders are very more reduced in their impact if they can't score. Living with a big or swing player who is less of a scorer is more ideal because of switching and recovery with "Ice" on D. Then on offense I find bigs/swing players that look more for playing making and defense often have a better chance of slipping through a defense going for high percentage scoring opportunities. It's all about fit and system. Having a flexible system is important more so than simply following a advanced metric that says we need to switch everything and shoot as many threes as possible.

Absolutely. The main issue I have with the small ball craze in this thread is that they somehow believe that pure skill can overcome all that we mentioned lol. Speaking of how this applies to the Celtics, I'd like to see Semi start at PF with Hayward being a super sixth man to play SF or PF. He's what I described, a low usage swing who can camp in the corner, set picks, crash the glass, do the dirty work, etc. He could use a couple more inches of length but I think his strength and mobility will make him able to cover 90% of the matchups at the 4 defensively. His offense is a huge yikes though, he'll need to up his three point shooting quite a bit.

Brad's offense works best (and in fact seems almost predicated on) having two play-makers on the floor at all times, one a small quick guard and one a big or large wing.   In old parlance, he likes to have both a 'point guard' and a 'point forward' on the floor at all times.

We have several play-making small guards:  Kemba, Smart, Wanamaker, Waters and hopefully/eventually Edwards.

We only have a couple of play-making forwards:  Hayward and Grant.   Grant is a rookie and is not going to be a starter.

Therefore, Hayward is almost certainly going to be starting.

The more interesting question will be what Brad does when Gordon sits.   How soon will he feel confident enough in G-Will to give him rotation minutes off the bench?   I expect until he does, he'll lean on Smart as at least a 'bigger-than-small' wing to be the larger of his two playmakers.

Yeah that's true, he loves his point forwards. I'd say Tatum can fill that role with his improved playmaking in the PnR this season, but I sure hope that he comes into training camp with 10-20 more pounds of muscle to play PF with how dead set Brad is to start Hayward lol.