Is post play over-rated?

[LooseCannon]

When the Celtics offense is stagnating, I often see calls for the team to use post offense to score, like it is some sort of fountain of points that the team is stubbornly refusing to take advantage of.  Over at Hoopspeak, Ethan Sherwood Strauss has written a post entitled "You Can't Just Throw It in the Post".

The truth is that the centers are all around us, we just legislated them out of the game. As I so often harp, the 2002  legalization of zone defense made life difficult for big men. There is a reason why Rik Smits–in his prime–had a higher usage rate than even today’s best centers, and it’s not that we stopped producing tall people of notable skill.

The post on the post is inspired by Roy Hibbert and it suggests two things to me: that fans over-estimate the value of a perceived mismatch at the center position (especially with regards to a few inches) and that an immobile big with good post moves is not the prized player that some seem to think he is these days.

So, a jump-shooting KG is a much more effective center than he would have been in the '90s; you don't have to post him up for that to be the case.  And it doesn't make sense for Danny Ainge to go out and sign or draft those lumbering, space-clogging centers of yore because they will be useless against a good, modern defense more advanced than the primitive notion of just staying with your man and against a modern big who has a good jump shot in his repertoire.
 

[indeedproceed]

The bigs with excellent footwork and above average athleticism are far from legislated out of the game. Bynum, when they go to him, is a great example. Howard.

Now, having a 10-15ft jumper helps a ton as well, but i don't think the zone defense killed the radio star.

[LarBrd33]

The bigs with excellent footwork and above average athleticism are far from legislated out of the game. Bynum, when they go to him, is a great example. Howard.

Now, having a 10-15ft jumper helps a ton as well, but i don't think the zone defense killed the radio star.

Agreed.  The article kinda undervalues how talented someone like Patrick Ewing was.  Rik Smits in his prime barely averaged 30 minutes.  He was 7-4, 250 pounds and averaged 18 points, 8 rebounds and a block.  I guess they are suggesting that a guy like Smits wouldn't be capable of playing well in today's game.  I disagree.  Certainly there are guys like Dirk and KG who intentionally avoided being stuck as "centers" despite being 7 feet tall, but that doesn't mean that every 7 footer either needs to choose that route or be doomed to failure.   WE're just in an era lacking great big men.  When Shaq was coming up he'd have endless battles with the likes of David Robinson and Ewing.  Hakeem use to absolutely destroy him.  Then suddenly he was the lone big man left. 

These days we have Pau and Bynum who are both talented centers with post game and have 2 titles.  Duncan is essentially a traditional center and he won 4 titles (might win his 5th this year).  Dwight is a great rebounder/defender, but lacks any real offensive game (I don't think he's anywhere near the Shaq, Hakeem or David Robinson level)... It's just a era lacking in great bigs.  Even Greg Oden, when he was briefly healthy, looked like he could make an impact.  Eventually another dominant big will come along and if the big man landscape is as dismal as it is today.. he's going to destroy the league.  Also... just in general... it's almost impossible to win a title without a top big man.  Even the lowly Tyson Chandler (who these days is one of the best centers in the league) was a key component to a championship run. 

[mctyson]

How can it be over-rated, when it is not really "rated?" It is just one element to the game.  A dominant center or PF can lead you to a championship, but you can also win championships with Bill Wennington and Kendrick Perkins.

[RyNye]

That author completely missed the point of working in the post.

All players use a combination of strength, agility, and footwork (plus play-making/calling and transition, but those aren't as relevant for 1-on-1 situations) to get open shots. This is a given, something we all know. A guard will use jab-steps, for example, or cross-overs, to get either open jump shots or a root to the lane.

Obviously, when the situation dictates, you would rather the guard drive to the lane than take a jump shot, because getting in close to the hoop allows you to get higher percentage shots, draw fouls, dish to open team-mates, etc. In most cases, driving to the hoop opens up your offensive opportunities more than simply taking a jump shot.

Agreed?

All people mean when they talk about playing in the post is the same principle we applied to the guard. Only we are applying it to a big man. A big man cannot start on the perimeter like a guard can, that's why you start him on the baseline, on the block, in the post, down low, whatever you want to call it. And he has to use a combination of strength, agility, and savvy to get an open shot.

The closer you are to the basket, the higher percentage shots you are going to generate. Period.

Talking about KG going to the post is no different than telling Rondo, for example, to drive to the hoop. It's just demanding a team take higher percentage shots when they need to generate points, because by definition those shots have a higher chance of generating points.

It's incredibly elementary, and whoever wrote that post is completely missing the point everyone is trying to make. His argument is the equivalent of saying Rondo should never drive to the hoop because a ref might call a charge. It's a red herring.

[Mr October]

Pretty bad article. Yes zone defense has hurt slow low post bigs. But this statement is way off:

 "...it’s not that we stopped producing tall people of notable skill."

I thought it was common knowledge that the quality of big men has dropped off. At the top of the NBA, this is the worst group of power forwards and centers I can remember.

The 2 best centers are Howard and Bynum. They are a solid step below Olajuwon, Shaq, Robinson, Ewing, Jabbar, M Malone, etc.

Even when Shaq was the lone dominant center, there was a surplus of great power forwards: Duncan, KG, Nowitzki, Webber.

The current top power forwards are still incomplete and young. Griffin and Love would get destroyed by the above PFs in their primes.

Also Rik Smits in his prime in the mid to late 90s is better than Hibbert is now. Smits had the complete game, especially on offense when he was in his prime. Hibbert still has learning to do. Heck he just learned how to run properly a season or 2 ago.

[Finkelskyhook]

No.

Just look as the threat Garnett has become since he's decided to demand the ball in the low post.  And where the team has gone since.

[hwangjini_1]

no. and neither is foreplay. 

[pearljammer10]

Not at all. Having a legit center/big man is huge for winning a championship. Shaq is my go to example. A young Kobe and Wade dont win their championship rings without Shaq.

[action781]

I generally disagree with the idea that post play isn't relevant (see examples already brought up), but Shaq is actually a reason why I think post play is not as dominant as it was in the 90's and previously.

Shaq was one of the most dominant players the NBA will ever see.  He was unguardable.  His sheer size along with his incredible skill allowed him to out muscle opponents to the rim and then score one possession after another.  It was so dominant and unstoppable, teams and big men defenders got creative and started flopping.  Before Shaq's era, big men used to bang each other down low; there was a sense of pride in winning that battle down low.  But in Shaq's prime, nobody had a chance against him.  So they had to start flopping.  They would take his contact right in the chest or wait for him to swing around and either take or pretend to take an elbow to the face (these sometimes were actually very cheap moves by Shaq) and gain possession by relying on the refs to make a call for them.

This is the way post defense has been played ever since against strong centers.  It was much easier back in the day to just back down a guy without even looking, but defenders are too smart not to allow you to do that and there isn't a "weak" stigma attached to those kind of plays like there would have been in previous eras.

[Celtics4ever]

No it is not over rated.   One can win without it but how much better are we when KG scores down low to help us spread the load.

[bruinsandceltics]

Have a a good center that can play in the post is huge. It's not to say you need it to win or it is guaranteed to get you a title, but it can give your team a huge advantage if you have the other pieces.

Fact of the matter is, a center who plays predominantly in the paint can get your team 5-10 easy buckets a game. Easy buckets are so important in today's game. We as Celtics fans should know that better than anyone else, given how much our team struggles to create points.

A center that can play in the post and hit 75% of his free throws is about twice as valuable as the first type I talked about.

[jdz101]

no. and neither is foreplay. 

A TP for the chuckle.

[Celtics18]

no. and neither is foreplay.  

Is that the play where you dribble the ball around for a while, waiting for an opening to take it to the hole?

[Meadowlark_Scal]

el, the post is a 8 foot shot....or many other options being down there...can bring a double team, which will open up someone....the trouble is..when kg posts..the rest of the team usually stands still....BAD move....and when KG shoots it...an easy rebound will be there..BUT...not for the celtics..before the ball hits the rim, they will be in thier own paint..waiting....so, a non rebounding team loses out on many scoring options because they are just a one and done. The post game can produce a nice long rebound.....bring youir guy to the top gtill kg shoots it, then run to the long side to get it....not docsa team though.....