What does 6 on 6 basketball do to spacing?

[zimpy27]

What if we warped the court so that it is lower at midcourt and higher at the goals. That way 3 point shots are shooting at a higher basket and also there is variation in height around the 3 point line, making it a more challenging shot.

Allow me to provide a helpful illustration:



Another perk is it rewards players with strong ankles as they'll be playing on an incline.

ETA: I can hear you folks thinking that this is a perfect idea except for one thing - doesn't this make dunking harder? Fear not, a simple modification where we ramp up to the basket and then back down would solve for that problem. Something along these lines:

This is like a court I grew up playing on.

[zimpy27]

Guys FFS ... I applaud the idea of 6v6 or the midcourt drop above, but please for the love of god , keep this energy for the offseason, we have like 1o days to the playoffs

Keep this energy and vibes for the offseason, not now

Good call, I'll repost this summer when folks are open to truly creating the perfect game instead of the slop that they're playing now on "level" courts.

Please do. This deserves more thought.

3D basketball with levels

[og15]

Exactly. Revert to 90s rules and enforcement. The knowledge and skills that developed since then and fit within that framework will remain, and we'll have a balanced game.

Why 90's why not 80's?

Teams with shooting and spacing also were actually scoring far more in the early 00's than everyone else btw, despite the rules. We can't unknow what we know. If you go back to those rules, teams still won't overwhelmingly play two bigs crowding the paint, and everyone knows enough about spacing now that no one is playing Micheal Curry, Michael Ruffin, Reggie Evans, etc, etc at the forward position next to a C.

If we go back to those rules and enforcement, does scoring go down? Yes. Does it go down to early 00's? Not even close because you're not building those rosters.

Remember rosters were built like that because previous illegal defense allowed you to manufacture fake spacing. The guy didn't actually have to be a true threat for defense to actually be sort of near him. Teams resized that and played more defensive guys knowing they could create spacing not based on player skill, but on rules.

This is just wrong. Illegal defense was called majority of the time when players doubled players off thr ball. This was a greater advantage to post players where defense could not prevent the ball getting to them.

On defense post big man can stand in the paint without a threat of being called as long as there opposing player was not in the arc area which just makes it so much easier to defend drives.

Players in the 90s (especially in '00s) when perimeter drives became more common and more leniency in being able to be physical off the ball just gave so much tools for defense.


Also if you watch games in those era, the illegal screens, travels, offensive fouls called are just totally different to today....it all adds up

We're not talking about the same thing.

You could generate spacing for isolation for post ups, if you're the Jazz, for a pick and roll on one side of the floor due to the rules that you wouldn't otherwise be able to without that player being able to shoot. This allowed you to build rosters that didn't need the same amount of spacing that a roster would need when you allow zone defense and defensive strategy adjusts to that.


This is also why the spacing of the average team looked a lot worse after zone defense was allowed because their rosters were still built for a different set of rules.

For sure, lots of things are called differently, but you change the enforcement back and you still have the explosion of basketball and influx of talent and all the roster building and strategic understanding. You're simply not returning to the same level of offense as the 90's, especially since the 90's was also an expansion time that watered down the bottom of the league.

You'd still be seeing average Ortg of 110+, yes, less than the averages now, but it won't be 107 and definitely not 102-103 of the early 00's. We can see the teams with roster builds that had more shooting (still far less than you would have now) at those low offense early 00's times, and they were not limited by the rules, because it wasn't just a rules issue.

It's not just rules, that's my point, this is multifactorial. Rules are a part, but thinking it's just rules is off.

Also this reminds me of a question I've asked before, which is, what is basketball supposed to look like? The 60's was minimal contact both ways, what was called as an offensive and defensive foul then would make people scratch their heads now. Travels then were very different than in the 80's and 90's. A carry then was different than the 70's and then the 80's and then the 90's. Gather step only really started being unofficially allowed in the 90's, and inconsistently. Cupping the ball was already in full force in the 90's.

Kobe was a major initial "abuser" of the rip through as we know it, as well as Duncan with his own post version. Moving screens were already in full force compared to the previous having to really be set. Remember the screen Karl Malone set to free Stockton with he hit the series winning shot vs Houston? Straight up holding.

Why would we choose 90's enforcement as the "standard"?

[dhsilv2]

Illegal defense was called majority of the time when players doubled players off thr ball.

What? Do you remember for example the Bulls vs Jazz series where Pippen was just hanging out in zone the whole series and the two coaching staffs were calling and fighting with the league over it was or wasn't illegal defense (it was by the letter of the rules). This stuff happened all the time. Teams were constantly getting away as much as they could and it was a lot. Certainly, allowing zone was a huge step forward, but by no means were refs strict or even consistent with calling illegal defense.

[Ol Roy]

Revert the rules back to the 90s and you will see the score dry up fast.

Today's perimeter defenders if you provide them with the same lee way they had in the 90s and sprinkle each team with lumbering big men to crowd the paint...we'll go back to the 2000 level of scoring

Exactly. Revert to 90s rules and enforcement. The knowledge and skills that developed since then and fit within that framework will remain, and we'll have a balanced game.

Why 90's why not 80's?

Teams with shooting and spacing also were actually scoring far more in the early 00's than everyone else btw, despite the rules. We can't unknow what we know. If you go back to those rules, teams still won't overwhelmingly play two bigs crowding the paint, and everyone knows enough about spacing now that no one is playing Micheal Curry, Michael Ruffin, Reggie Evans, etc, etc at the forward position next to a C.

If we go back to those rules and enforcement, does scoring go down? Yes. Does it go down to early 00's? Not even close because you're not building those rosters.

Remember rosters were built like that because previous illegal defense allowed you to manufacture fake spacing. The guy didn't actually have to be a true threat for defense to actually be sort of near him. Teams resized that and played more defensive guys knowing they could create spacing not based on player skill, but on rules.

I feel like I addressed this. We can't put knowledge back in a box, but we can change the rules back. So, the knowledge improvements would remain but would have to fit within the rules.

I'd particularly enjoy seeing the return of hand-checking and traveling calls. I wouldn't favor making zone defense illegal again. I do prefer skill-based spacing over artificial spacing to be sure.

[SweaterBae]

How aboot we just fix the officiating.

[TheNG]

People will do anything to find another place for Embiid in the NBA first team, even if for that purpose they need to make the game 6 vs 6

[GregAz]

Basketball was an inside the arc game mostly until 2010s, then the 3 bloomed and now we have space galore.

What would 6v6 look like on a court in this era?
Would it improve defense?

The bigger question would be how big would it get. Now that we have positionless basketball, it's very possible a team could put three (!) centers to guard the rim. What is a defensive 3-second violation again? That would be Jeopardy!

If six-on-six is to be had, there would need to be big changes. And I honestly would think going the hockey route might be the best recourse, mainly for fairness purposes. I know this thread was supposed to be focusing on theoretical defense, but I'm going to veer off topic for the purposes of illustration.

Centers have always been listed near seven feet, if not past it. Total combined height based on traditional basketball play according to Wikipedia articles on each position is 32 ft. 6 in on the low end and 33 ft. 7 on the high end. By adding one more player, assuming that sixth is a center, the total combined height can climb upwards of 39 to 40 (!) feet (42 if your dream team is all centers). Initially my plan was to institute a height limitation, say no more than 40 feet total, but I was worried it would rob teams that are big-based from using their twin towers schemes (Duncan-Robinson Spurs lineups come to mind). Then I thought of applying the hockey rule of exchanging a goalie for an extra player, which in turn made the team's own net empty and exposed to point blank shots from the opponent, only to circle back to the prohibition of the twin towers. It all has to do with fairness: how do you properly address six-on-six on both sides of the floor without making one facet of the game become too powerful and invincible to defeat.

List of height measurements according to Wikipedia:

Point Guard: 6'1 to 6'4
Shooting Guard: 6'3 to 6'7
Small Forward: 6'6 to 6'9
Power Forward: 6'8 to 6'11
Center: 7'

I like the total height cap for a team in a bizarro world. At 40' you could get 6 guys at 5'6" and 1 at 7' for a total of 7 players,

[queridiculo]

Guys FFS ... I applaud the idea of 6v6 or the midcourt drop above, but please for the love of god , keep this energy for the offseason, we have like 1o days to the playoffs

Keep this energy and vibes for the offseason, not now

Good call, I'll repost this summer when folks are open to truly creating the perfect game instead of the slop that they're playing now on "level" courts.

Why not play on a swiveled court?

The incline should weighted based on the score, with the trailing team playing downhill.

Coaches can reset the court towards level by substituting timeouts for a 2% change in incline (not more than two consecutive timeouts can be spent).

You could also include a home team modifier that allows the crowd to influence incline.

0.2% of incline for every 10dB of crowd noise over a minute span.

Crowd noise modifier can be invoked by any home team player on the court with a raise the roof gesture.

Cannot be used more often than once every 6 minutes.

[mysticOscar]

Dwight Howard and DeAndre Jordan are not lumbering bigs though, those are athletic bigs.

Someone like Rasho Nesterovic or Jamaal Magloire is an example of a lumbering big.

When I say lumbering bigs, I mean bigs whose skillset is clogging up the pain on defense and getting deep post position on offense and are not known for opening up the paint via shooting

These types of players are just not valuable in today's pace and space environment as they were in orevious eras...where the league has blatantly said they want to move away from them and took actions to implement those objectives.

But yeah let's ignore what the organisation has been telling us for years. This is insanity to me

Those guys are elite rim runners and defenders. Gobert is making max type money for his defense. nobody on earth is saying elite athletic big men are of no value.

But we're not posting up either of them today either. Because that wasn't good offense. But we sure as hell would want them on every team if enough existed.

Again, these players are not as valuable as they are today. You migh have teams that has these players for specific specialised roles...I never made a claim that they have no place in today's game. Please read my posts

You keep saying that running your game through the post is bad iffense but I've told u many times that post oriented offense garnered higher offense league wide than when the league changed to perimeter oriented offense. Because of the FT it garners and offensive rebounds opportunities.

It'd only in recent years that the perimeter offense have caught up and overtaken a historical post oriented offense league and u keep going on about how bad post offense is.

This is after the league changing the game consistently in the past 20 yeats to make perimeter easier

[mysticOscar]

Why 90's why not 80's?

Teams with shooting and spacing also were actually scoring far more in the early 00's than everyone else btw, despite the rules. We can't unknow what we know. If you go back to those rules, teams still won't overwhelmingly play two bigs crowding the paint, and everyone knows enough about spacing now that no one is playing Micheal Curry, Michael Ruffin, Reggie Evans, etc, etc at the forward position next to a C.

If we go back to those rules and enforcement, does scoring go down? Yes. Does it go down to early 00's? Not even close because you're not building those rosters.

Remember rosters were built like that because previous illegal defense allowed you to manufacture fake spacing. The guy didn't actually have to be a true threat for defense to actually be sort of near him. Teams resized that and played more defensive guys knowing they could create spacing not based on player skill, but on rules.

This is just wrong. Illegal defense was called majority of the time when players doubled players off thr ball. This was a greater advantage to post players where defense could not prevent the ball getting to them.

On defense post big man can stand in the paint without a threat of being called as long as there opposing player was not in the arc area which just makes it so much easier to defend drives.

Players in the 90s (especially in '00s) when perimeter drives became more common and more leniency in being able to be physical off the ball just gave so much tools for defense.


Also if you watch games in those era, the illegal screens, travels, offensive fouls called are just totally different to today....it all adds up

We're not talking about the same thing.

You could generate spacing for isolation for post ups, if you're the Jazz, for a pick and roll on one side of the floor due to the rules that you wouldn't otherwise be able to without that player being able to shoot. This allowed you to build rosters that didn't need the same amount of spacing that a roster would need when you allow zone defense and defensive strategy adjusts to that.


This is also why the spacing of the average team looked a lot worse after zone defense was allowed because their rosters were still built for a different set of rules.

For sure, lots of things are called differently, but you change the enforcement back and you still have the explosion of basketball and influx of talent and all the roster building and strategic understanding. You're simply not returning to the same level of offense as the 90's, especially since the 90's was also an expansion time that watered down the bottom of the league.

You'd still be seeing average Ortg of 110+, yes, less than the averages now, but it won't be 107 and definitely not 102-103 of the early 00's. We can see the teams with roster builds that had more shooting (still far less than you would have now) at those low offense early 00's times, and they were not limited by the rules, because it wasn't just a rules issue.

It's not just rules, that's my point, this is multifactorial. Rules are a part, but thinking it's just rules is off.

Also this reminds me of a question I've asked before, which is, what is basketball supposed to look like? The 60's was minimal contact both ways, what was called as an offensive and defensive foul then would make people scratch their heads now. Travels then were very different than in the 80's and 90's. A carry then was different than the 70's and then the 80's and then the 90's. Gather step only really started being unofficially allowed in the 90's, and inconsistently. Cupping the ball was already in full force in the 90's.

Kobe was a major initial "abuser" of the rip through as we know it, as well as Duncan with his own post version. Moving screens were already in full force compared to the previous having to really be set. Remember the screen Karl Malone set to free Stockton with he hit the series winning shot vs Houston? Straight up holding.

Why would we choose 90's enforcement as the "standard"?

If you revert all the rules back to the 90s...teams will adjust to take advantage on all the tools the defense have in there arsenal.

Today's offense style is powered by the threat of the drive, defense will now have the arsenal to slow these down...which will then limit the amount teams can spam there sets that are predicated on a threat of a drive.

Also defenders will take advantage of having more leeway to get physical off the ball, tiring the shooters.

Perimeter offense will also be now limited...

Perimeter offense will realise that you can no longer get away with push off's.

In 90s basketball and players getting called on illegal screens because they leaned slightly to the left are a joke when compared to what players can do now on screens

Travels in prior eras that looked like a travel were generally called a travel unlike today where we now we make excuses to say "hey he was in process of gathering while taking a step blah blah"

In short, offensive sets that relay on a threat of perimeter drives are going to be negatively impacted...and much harder to spam effectively.

But if we revert the rules back to the 90s, teams will realise having a big man in the post who teams can rely to initiate the offense will be harder to deny...and they will have the bonus to really clog up the paint for perimeter drives.

[mysticOscar]

Illegal defense was called majority of the time when players doubled players off thr ball.

What? Do you remember for example the Bulls vs Jazz series where Pippen was just hanging out in zone the whole series and the two coaching staffs were calling and fighting with the league over it was or wasn't illegal defense (it was by the letter of the rules). This stuff happened all the time. Teams were constantly getting away as much as they could and it was a lot. Certainly, allowing zone was a huge step forward, but by no means were refs strict or even consistent with calling illegal defense.

Coaches complained when teams sag to a point where they double a player off the ball denying an entry pass.

This is more on denying post entry plays.

Eliminating illegal defense was more to deter spamming post oriented sets

[Fencer reregistered]

What if we warped the court so that it is lower at midcourt and higher at the goals. That way 3 point shots are shooting at a higher basket and also there is variation in height around the 3 point line, making it a more challenging shot.

Allow me to provide a helpful illustration:



Another perk is it rewards players with strong ankles as they'll be playing on an incline.

ETA: I can hear you folks thinking that this is a perfect idea except for one thing - doesn't this make dunking harder? Fear not, a simple modification where we ramp up to the basket and then back down would solve for that problem. Something along these lines:

The billiard-sharp whom anyone catches
His doom’s extremely hard—
He’s made to dwell
In a dungeon cell
On a spot that’s always barred.
And there he plays extravagant matches
In fitless finger-stalls,
On a cloth untrue
With a twisted cue
And elliptical billiard balls.

Watch on YouTube

[dhsilv2]

When I say lumbering bigs, I mean bigs whose skillset is clogging up the pain on defense and getting deep post position on offense and are not known for opening up the paint via shooting

These types of players are just not valuable in today's pace and space environment as they were in orevious eras...where the league has blatantly said they want to move away from them and took actions to implement those objectives.

But yeah let's ignore what the organisation has been telling us for years. This is insanity to me

Those guys are elite rim runners and defenders. Gobert is making max type money for his defense. nobody on earth is saying elite athletic big men are of no value.

But we're not posting up either of them today either. Because that wasn't good offense. But we sure as hell would want them on every team if enough existed.

Again, these players are not as valuable as they are today. You migh have teams that has these players for specific specialised roles...I never made a claim that they have no place in today's game. Please read my posts

You keep saying that running your game through the post is bad iffense but I've told u many times that post oriented offense garnered higher offense league wide than when the league changed to perimeter oriented offense. Because of the FT it garners and offensive rebounds opportunities.

It'd only in recent years that the perimeter offense have caught up and overtaken a historical post oriented offense league and u keep going on about how bad post offense is.

This is after the league changing the game consistently in the past 20 yeats to make perimeter easier

You started off by referencing lumbering big men. Then you listed two of the least lumbering big men in NBA history.

The two you listed were DeAndre Jordan and Dwight Howard. No sorry, there has never been a league where posting up DeAndre Jordan was even bad offense. It was terrible offense. Howard, it was so so.

During the lowest scoring era in NBA history the two best offenses were the Kings and Mavs. Two perimeter teams built on passing and shooting. You can keep saying that post offense worked, but it simply isn't supported.

And post offense generates LESS offensive rebounders, not more. Long rebounds are more likely to be offensively rebounded. You're confusing this with the changes coaches made to have their guys get back on defense vs chasing offensive rebounds because teams in the 80's and into the early 90's were giving up more points in transition than they were getting off chasing offensive rebounds.

As for free throws, that all just comes down to how refs call the game. If your goal is free throws then you want to focus on guards driving to the basket and forcing the issue at the rim. That generates more fouls than post play does and it would apply to any era if you have the personnel to do it.

[dhsilv2]

Illegal defense was called majority of the time when players doubled players off thr ball.

What? Do you remember for example the Bulls vs Jazz series where Pippen was just hanging out in zone the whole series and the two coaching staffs were calling and fighting with the league over it was or wasn't illegal defense (it was by the letter of the rules). This stuff happened all the time. Teams were constantly getting away as much as they could and it was a lot. Certainly, allowing zone was a huge step forward, but by no means were refs strict or even consistent with calling illegal defense.

Coaches complained when teams sag to a point where they double a player off the ball denying an entry pass.

This is more on denying post entry plays.

Eliminating illegal defense was more to deter spamming post oriented sets

Yes, coaches did complain. That doesn't mean they go the calls. The whole Jazz offense was designed around using the illegal defense rules to turn their half court game into a 2 on 2 game. The bulls had Pippen on the big for the Jazz and in doing so he was able to sag over enough to turn it into a 2 on 3.

Teams did this because teams lacked enough offensive talent to actually maximize the value of 5 on 5 basketball in that era. So while some teams might today if we went back to those rules, still do that. Many more teams would continue to spread teams out with shooting to create drives.

[louc1970]

What if we warped the court so that it is lower at midcourt and higher at the goals. That way 3 point shots are shooting at a higher basket and also there is variation in height around the 3 point line, making it a more challenging shot.

Allow me to provide a helpful illustration:



Another perk is it rewards players with strong ankles as they'll be playing on an incline.

ETA: I can hear you folks thinking that this is a perfect idea except for one thing - doesn't this make dunking harder? Fear not, a simple modification where we ramp up to the basket and then back down would solve for that problem. Something along these lines:

And1 in appreciation of the hard work you obviously put into this

Couldn't we just have a goal post with a remote and as someone shots, the basket moves? Imagine the faces on dunk attempts.

[mysticOscar]

Those guys are elite rim runners and defenders. Gobert is making max type money for his defense. nobody on earth is saying elite athletic big men are of no value.

But we're not posting up either of them today either. Because that wasn't good offense. But we sure as hell would want them on every team if enough existed.

Again, these players are not as valuable as they are today. You migh have teams that has these players for specific specialised roles...I never made a claim that they have no place in today's game. Please read my posts

You keep saying that running your game through the post is bad iffense but I've told u many times that post oriented offense garnered higher offense league wide than when the league changed to perimeter oriented offense. Because of the FT it garners and offensive rebounds opportunities.

It'd only in recent years that the perimeter offense have caught up and overtaken a historical post oriented offense league and u keep going on about how bad post offense is.

This is after the league changing the game consistently in the past 20 yeats to make perimeter easier

You started off by referencing lumbering big men. Then you listed two of the least lumbering big men in NBA history.

The two you listed were DeAndre Jordan and Dwight Howard. No sorry, there has never been a league where posting up DeAndre Jordan was even bad offense. It was terrible offense. Howard, it was so so.

During the lowest scoring era in NBA history the two best offenses were the Kings and Mavs. Two perimeter teams built on passing and shooting. You can keep saying that post offense worked, but it simply isn't supported.

And post offense generates LESS offensive rebounders, not more. Long rebounds are more likely to be offensively rebounded. You're confusing this with the changes coaches made to have their guys get back on defense vs chasing offensive rebounds because teams in the 80's and into the early 90's were giving up more points in transition than they were getting off chasing offensive rebounds.

As for free throws, that all just comes down to how refs call the game. If your goal is free throws then you want to focus on guards driving to the basket and forcing the issue at the rim. That generates more fouls than post play does and it would apply to any era if you have the personnel to do it.

Not sure why you ignored my definition of "lumbering" big men in my previous posts, which are based more on the traditional big men in the game.

It's those big men that provides option in the post for offense and provide offensive rebound opportunities while providing defense on the paint AND are not generally not known to be spam shooters or perimeter drives like a lot of the "big" men do today.

They are crucial in post oriented league, because when you have teams that are dominant in the post, these players are going to be the front line defense in slowing them down (as well as perimeter drives that occured from time to time)...thats why you see a lot of these guys utilised (even if some lacked offensive prowess) utilised and also to provide second chance possesions with offensive rebounds.

Your understanding in prior eras is really lacking and you look at everything through the modern lens. Incorporating todays data to analyse prior eras is not the right approach and lacks so much context.

You stating that "And post offense generates LESS offensive rebounders, not more. Long rebounds are more likely to be offensively rebounded." just clearly shows this...because you are looking at the analysis using modern environment where teams don't generally go for offensive rebound and teams have gone away from post oriented offense.

How do we know this? Because 80s/90s Offensive rebounds has been a lot higher than what it has been in the past 20 years when the league has shifted away from post oriented offesne.

Also you can spin it as much as you want and say post oriented offense is not effecient....but 80s/90s post oriented offense was consistantly a lot higher than majority of the perimeter oriented offense in the past 20 years....ONLY CATCHING UP AROUND 2017.....after the league has implemented so many changes to make it easier for perimeter offense. .

I wonder how today's league would be like if we reversed all these rules that benefit the perimeter? You really think that it wont impact scoring? What dimension does peopole that think this way live in?

[Karate Diop]

I would modify by making it so that the 6th man cannot cross halfcourt (can only play defense). That way defense would have a fighting chance.

[mysticOscar]

What? Do you remember for example the Bulls vs Jazz series where Pippen was just hanging out in zone the whole series and the two coaching staffs were calling and fighting with the league over it was or wasn't illegal defense (it was by the letter of the rules). This stuff happened all the time. Teams were constantly getting away as much as they could and it was a lot. Certainly, allowing zone was a huge step forward, but by no means were refs strict or even consistent with calling illegal defense.

Coaches complained when teams sag to a point where they double a player off the ball denying an entry pass.

This is more on denying post entry plays.

Eliminating illegal defense was more to deter spamming post oriented sets

Yes, coaches did complain. That doesn't mean they go the calls. The whole Jazz offense was designed around using the illegal defense rules to turn their half court game into a 2 on 2 game. The bulls had Pippen on the big for the Jazz and in doing so he was able to sag over enough to turn it into a 2 on 3.

Teams did this because teams lacked enough offensive talent to actually maximize the value of 5 on 5 basketball in that era. So while some teams might today if we went back to those rules, still do that. Many more teams would continue to spread teams out with shooting to create drives.

Teams sagged and tried to stretch the rules of illegal defense back in the day was to prevent an entry pass to the post. Because when you ahve a dominant post player in the post, it creates havoc to the defense since it scrambles the defense in sending help to the post player once they have the ball to either attack to the basket or pass out to cutters / shooters. Not sure what tangent you have gone to.

If we did reverse and implemented the illegal rules again today, it won't provide much change to double coverage off the ball since the game has moved away from the post and the amount of shooters on the roster...HOWEVER, that rule did come with the defensive 3 seconds which will now be eliminated if you did reverse this rule.

What that will provide is more arsenal for the defense to cover drives since now you can camp players in the paint

[EmperorLocky]

I wouldn't mind giving us regular sized folk a chance. Make positions by mandatory heights.

PG - 6'0 and less
SG - 6'1 to 6'4
SF - 6'5 to 6'8
PF - 6'9 to 6'11
C - 7'0 plus