What is the advantage of "wing" players?

[jaketwice]

Why not just have three  guys 6'10" or higher, and two PGs?

Since you can play zone, the three big guys would, essentially, prevent any dribble penetration in the half court. They'd have position, get all the rebounds, and would relegate the other team to jump shooting. Since you'd have, essentially, three rebounders, and three shot-blockers, the guards could gamble every possession, and force the other team to either play back to the basket, or fire up threes.

On offense, the bigs are great picks for the pick and roll game, and can set giant screens for the guards. Obviously, you'd want tall guys who could score facing the basket - but I think that's available these days.

Your PGs would have to shoot all your 3 pointers - but so long as your other two bigs could hit mid-range shots, they'd have an easy enough time getting open the Defense would have to be in the paint all the time. A super athletic team might be able to take the ball more often, and score more points on the break - but so long as you scored more often than not, you'd be playing half court ball most of the time and, more often than you would otherwise, ending the defensive possession with a defensive rebound.

Come at me bros.

[lightspeed5]

spreading the floor, and 3 pts is more than 2. speed is also a factor. also because mid range shooting 7 footers dont grow on trees and arent cheap

[PhoSita]

that's why there's such a thing as a 3 pt shot.

[jaketwice]

spreading the floor, and 3 pts is more than 2. speed is also a factor. also because mid range shooting 7 footers dont grow on trees and arent cheap

These seem like contradictory statements. Are you saying that the situation I propose is more desirable? Or are you saying that wing players are actually more desirable?

Three pointers are harder to make. I guess if they spread four guys around the perimeter, and just pass the ball until the point guards run out of gas, that could be a good counter - but the team of three 7 footers and two pgs would score at an amazingly efficient pace.

If you shoot 65% of 2 pointers, you get 1.3 points per possession, average, right?

If you shoot 35.9% from 3 (which is league average) you get 1.08 ppp. I think that's a huge margin, at figure an average of 90 possession per game.

[syfy9]

So you're assuming that they would seldom go man-to-man, right? Because the other PG and the big SF would get abused.

If that's the case, then you'd be forced to play zone most of the time. There's a reason why not every team uses a zone. While some elite defensive teams can pull it off to great effect, it's a gambling defense that requires quick rotation and can be broken with ball movement.

You don't see teams playing primarily zone in the NBA. There's a reason why.

[jaketwice]

spreading the floor, and 3 pts is more than 2. speed is also a factor. also because mid range shooting 7 footers dont grow on trees and arent cheap

These seem like contradictory statements. Are you saying that the situation I propose is more desirable? Or are you saying that wing players are actually more desirable?

Three pointers are harder to make. I guess if they spread four guys around the perimeter, and just pass the ball until the point guards run out of gas, that could be a good counter - but the team of three 7 footers and two pgs would score at an amazingly efficient pace.

If you shoot 65% of 2 pointers, you get 1.3 points per possession, average, right?

If you shoot 35.9% from 3 (which is league average) you get 1.08 ppp. I think that's a huge margin, at figure an average of 90 possession per game.

Just to add to this: your guards would be trying to steal the ball all the time. So it's not as if they'd be shooting uncontested threes. They toss the ball into the corner, the guards cut off the passing lanes, and then gamble. The only choice is to drive into the teeth of the WALL OF MAN that would be your defense.

[jaketwice]

So you're assuming that they would seldom go man-to-man, right? Because the other PG and the big SF would get abused.

If that's the case, then you'd be forced to play zone most of the time. There's a reason why not every team uses a zone. While some elite defensive teams can pull it off to great effect, it's a gambling defense that requires quick rotation and can be broken with ball movement.

You don't see teams playing primarily zone in the NBA. There's a reason why.

Sure - it gets broken by ball movement - but if a drive only seldom leads to points, then it would be efficient to compel drives. Blow by me genius! Two guys will converge to prevent you from doing anything with the ball and PS: they will have position.

Your guards just keep closing the passing lanes until the ball ends up in the corner. Then the guy has to drive, throw it to the lane, or shoot a contested jumper.

[syfy9]

So you're assuming that they would seldom go man-to-man, right? Because the other PG and the big SF would get abused.

If that's the case, then you'd be forced to play zone most of the time. There's a reason why not every team uses a zone. While some elite defensive teams can pull it off to great effect, it's a gambling defense that requires quick rotation and can be broken with ball movement.

You don't see teams playing primarily zone in the NBA. There's a reason why.

Sure - it gets broken by ball movement - but if a drive only seldom leads to points, then it would be efficient to compel drives. Blow by me genius! Two guys will converge to prevent you from doing anything with the ball and PS: they will have position.

Your guards just keep closing the passing lanes until the ball ends up in the corner. Then the guy has to drive, throw it to the lane, or shoot a contested jumper.

When I played high school football (as a lineman), my coach always stressed that there was a difference between a combo block and a double team. A combo block were 2 people blocking 2 people (d-tackle/end and linebacker) and a double team was 2 people blocking 1 person.

In a combo block, you can't double team on the d-tackle/end. The linebacker will go unblocked; you'd actually be making his job easier by opening up a hole for him to tackle the running-back in.

Same with basketball. You can't double team - you'll leave open a wide open 3 point shooter. A point guard like Rondo/CP3 would destroy zones because they can get to the paint and know where their spotting up teammates are.

And if they have inside position against the drive, they won't be able to secure the perimeter. They'd be committed. 6'10 guys would be like the defensive line - you need them and you'd like very good ones, but they have a role. You don't ask all those guys to play linebacker or corner.

You seldom double team in football, like you seldom zone up in the NBA. Combo blocking, which is used 98% of the time, is similar to the NBA's man-to-man.

[action781]

Why not just have three  guys 6'10" or higher, and two PGs?

Since you can play zone, the three big guys would, essentially, prevent any dribble penetration in the half court. They'd have position, get all the rebounds, and would relegate the other team to jump shooting. Since you'd have, essentially, three rebounders, and three shot-blockers, the guards could gamble every possession, and force the other team to either play back to the basket, or fire up threes.

On offense, the bigs are great picks for the pick and roll game, and can set giant screens for the guards. Obviously, you'd want tall guys who could score facing the basket - but I think that's available these days.

Your PGs would have to shoot all your 3 pointers - but so long as your other two bigs could hit mid-range shots, they'd have an easy enough time getting open the Defense would have to be in the paint all the time. A super athletic team might be able to take the ball more often, and score more points on the break - but so long as you scored more often than not, you'd be playing half court ball most of the time and, more often than you would otherwise, ending the defensive possession with a defensive rebound.

Come at me bros.

So you want three 6'10" guys who can stop dribble penetration, block shots, score facing the basket, and hit mid range shots.

So, you just need to sign three of Duncan, KG, Pau Gasol, Lamarcus Aldridge, Marc Gasol, Demarcus Cousins, Brook Lopez, Al Horford, and Chris Bosh.  I struggling to think of another player in the NBA who fits that description.  Oh yeah, maybe Amare too.

Totally guys who are available these days.  Piece of cake.

[guava_wrench]

The OP is fine in NBA 2K.

In the real world, you work with the combinations of skills and physical traits that real players have. Not all 6'10" players are shot blockers.

Imagine a frontline of 3 Bargnani's. Does that scare you?

The NBA is more skilled and faster today than it was in the the days of Eaton and Bol. A lot of big guys don't get minutes because they end up being liabilities with the speed of today's game.

[action781]

The OP is fine in NBA 2K.

In the real world, you work with the combinations of skills and physical traits that real players have. Not all 6'10" players are shot blockers.

Imagine a frontline of 3 Bargnani's. Does that scare you?

The NBA is more skilled and faster today than it was in the the days of Eaton and Bol. A lot of big guys don't get minutes because they end up being liabilities with the speed of today's game.

But 3 Fab Melo's will just swat every single shot that any player on the other team shoots and we can hold teams to 0 points every game!  It's a no-brainer!

[guava_wrench]

Why not just have three  guys 6'10" or higher, and two PGs?

Since you can play zone, the three big guys would, essentially, prevent any dribble penetration in the half court. They'd have position, get all the rebounds, and would relegate the other team to jump shooting. Since you'd have, essentially, three rebounders, and three shot-blockers, the guards could gamble every possession, and force the other team to either play back to the basket, or fire up threes.

On offense, the bigs are great picks for the pick and roll game, and can set giant screens for the guards. Obviously, you'd want tall guys who could score facing the basket - but I think that's available these days.

Your PGs would have to shoot all your 3 pointers - but so long as your other two bigs could hit mid-range shots, they'd have an easy enough time getting open the Defense would have to be in the paint all the time. A super athletic team might be able to take the ball more often, and score more points on the break - but so long as you scored more often than not, you'd be playing half court ball most of the time and, more often than you would otherwise, ending the defensive possession with a defensive rebound.

Come at me bros.

So you want three 6'10" guys who can stop dribble penetration, block shots, score facing the basket, and hit mid range shots.

So, you just need to sign three of Duncan, KG, Pau Gasol, Lamarcus Aldridge, Marc Gasol, Demarcus Cousins, Brook Lopez, Al Horford, and Chris Bosh.  I struggling to think of another player in the NBA who fits that description.  Oh yeah, maybe Amare too.

Totally guys who are available these days.  Piece of cake.

I suppose not all of them need to do everything.

You could have the Lakers front line of Bynum, Gasol and Odom. The fact that this front line actually existed shows that there is nothing original in proposing this. It is just hard to get the players.

Why would anyone insist on having a 6'10 small forward instead of just starting one of the many excellent 6'8" or 6'9" SF (George, Deng, Lebron, Melo, Smith, Durant). Are you going to draft Ilyasova over those guys in order to get a 6'10" SF? Is his height going to get you something that the other 6 don't bring to the table? Who would you rather have protect the rim or work the post from the SF - Ersan, or any of the other 6? (side note: Is Durant really only 6'9"?)

In fact, who would you rather have in the post, 6'7" Pierce, 6'9" Carlos Boozer, or 6'10 Ilyasova?

These days, people think of the Pacers as a team with height even though their PF is only 6'9". But that 6'9" PF is extremely skilled in the post.

[guava_wrench]

The OP is fine in NBA 2K.

In the real world, you work with the combinations of skills and physical traits that real players have. Not all 6'10" players are shot blockers.

Imagine a frontline of 3 Bargnani's. Does that scare you?

The NBA is more skilled and faster today than it was in the the days of Eaton and Bol. A lot of big guys don't get minutes because they end up being liabilities with the speed of today's game.

But 3 Fab Melo's will just swat every single shot that any player on the other team shoots and we can hold teams to 0 points every game!  It's a no-brainer!

Considering Fab's offense, I guess that means the score will be 0-0!

The other team won't get blocked on the fast breaks off of the Fab Melo turnovers.

[action781]

The OP is fine in NBA 2K.

In the real world, you work with the combinations of skills and physical traits that real players have. Not all 6'10" players are shot blockers.

Imagine a frontline of 3 Bargnani's. Does that scare you?

The NBA is more skilled and faster today than it was in the the days of Eaton and Bol. A lot of big guys don't get minutes because they end up being liabilities with the speed of today's game.

But 3 Fab Melo's will just swat every single shot that any player on the other team shoots and we can hold teams to 0 points every game!  It's a no-brainer!

Considering Fab's offense, I guess that means the score will be 0-0!

The other team won't get blocked on the fast breaks off of the Fab Melo turnovers.

 

Touche!