Rethinking the "stretch" 4

[Dr Spaceman]

Something rather odd popped into my head yesterday. The league is in a really tumultuous space as far as offensive strategy goes, with seemingly huge paradigm shifts every couple years. I think people have seen the proliferation of 3 point shooting, and have latched onto the stretch (shooting) 4 as the wave of the future. The thing is, that's a relatively old concept, and I think the league's talent is such that most teams have abundant shooting and that type of player isn't the commodity we thought it would be. However, thinking about the rosters and offensive schemes of some top WC teams has actually planted the thought in my mind that there might be an actual paradigm shift happening. I still have no idea whether this is just sort of an accident or whether teams are beginning to deliberately target this skill set, but take a look at some PFs on elite WC teams:

Draymond Green
Blake Griffin
Josh Smith
Boris Diaw

The one that really got me was Josh Smith. Houston picked him off the scrap pile midseason and decided he was so valuable that they gave him the starting nod in the middle of their playoff run, even over a player in Terrence Jones who is a better shooter and scorer.

What do these guys all have in common? The ability to create shots for others off the dribble. Playmaking, to be concise. These guys look like very different players, and I'm not saying this is all they do, but there is a very obvious commonality in that portion of their skill set. For guys like Griffin, this is part of a diverse offensive attack. For Smith/Green? This is basically all they do offensively.

Think about the court geometrically, and why it might be advantageous to have a playmaker at the 4. With a competent lead ball-handler, teams are very likely going to hedge or jump the pick and roll, meaning the roll guy is very likely going to get the ball with a head of steam at around the elbow. From here, it's a very short distance to both the center at the rim and shooters in the corners. It's easier for a 4 to make these passes because 1. he's taller than a point 2. being positioned at the elbow means the average distance on any pass is shorter, leading to fewer turnovers and quicker ball-movement.

I credit the Clippers for thinking this way on offense, and obviously the NBA is a copycat league so I wouldn't be at all surprised if their opponents were just copying these sets. Think about how often in these playoffs you've seen a 1/4 pick and roll turn into the PF setting up the C for a lob. It's kind of crazy. All these teams have athletic finishers at C and shooters at the 2/3. It's actually remarkable how closely they all fit this specific offensive paradigm.

Again, no idea if this is is an actual trend or just a weird coincidence. I'm gonna be watching very closely now for offensive sets these teams run and try to get some video evidence. Let me know what y'all think.

[RSCD3_]

Yeah I noticed this too Another odd thing is that smith has been passable from 3, hitting about 34% of his attempts
and he's only taking about 4 attempts per game tops so it hasnt been that bad especially considering what he did in detroit. His chemistry with Dwight is a real thing and since we're already paying him, houston should be able to bring him back.

Also another thing I have noticed in this series that I just chalked up to the clippers mistakes is how dominant the Howard+Smith+Ariza lineup is. +11.6 and this is due in my mind to the versatality of these 3, all of them can guard the 4, two can guard the 3 very good and the other is no slouch, and Smith/Howard can defend the Center position. Similiarly the Elbow effect works here as you have a knockdown shooter, a rim running threat and a dude who can hit either off a pass and if you back off too much in the elbow he can ham in your face. Have Harden in these lineups on the other side and its basically unfair to guard.

Houston looks like it could be a real tough team next year seeing as most of these players will be brought back

[bleeds_purple]

LeBron has been doing that for years playing as the nominal four during crunch time.

The other thing that I'd like to see exploited more often with these "playmaking" fours is setting the 4/5 screen and roll. It totally inverts the offense and forces all of the opposing teams bigs out of the paint and generally the center doesn't have the foot speed to stay in front of these type of fours who can handle.

[Mutnt]

Good observations, although if you're perhaps alluding that ''these teams are showing sings that having a good playmaking option at the 4 is potentially more advantageous for the offense as having a player that can stretch the floor and shoot''; well I'll say there needs to be a specific combination of both.

It is true that all the players you mentioned above have the common denominator of being good/great playmakers, but another parallel they share as well is that they are a threat to score from long distance (ok, Josh Smith is well... at least the way he's playing right now, we can't argue with that). If these guys weren't respectable from long range in the first place their playmaking would be severely limited. I won't say it would be completely useless, because the way these guys pass off the roll would still be pretty good.

I'd say this is just an extension to the ''stretch 4'' concept. Guys like Bosh and Ibaka aren't really great playmakers but they still help the offense by stretching the floor from that 4,5 spot. Some teams however (like the ones you mentioned) realized that if you got a relatively big player on your roster that is talented at passing/making plays and can shoot well it actually gives the offense more options, so it's better to play a Josh Smith over Jones at that spot (as long as Smith is making his shots at a relatively efficient clip), it's better to play a Draymond Green there over Lee etc. The offense just becomes much more flexible when the ball eventually arrives to said players. You maybe sacrifice a couple percents of shooting efficiency for much better playmaking, and it amplifies your ability to convert in transition and get in transition too, and at the end it looks like it works out.

[giordunk]

Another thing about the power forward being reinvented - RIm protection is incredibly overrated. In today's game where the most dynamic players are guards, it's much more useful to have a mobile big who doesn't get assassinated on the pick and roll during a switch.

The playmaking stretch 4 could be the future. I think any successful team should have at least 3 guys who can handle the ball and create plays for each other, and this has commonly been the 3 perimeter positions, or two perimeter guys and a sixth man.

It's not a new concept though... Other than Duncan, guys like Garnett, Webber and Dirk have all been guys who could shoot the ball and handle the rock. But that type of playstyle used to only be reserved for stars, but in reality you can easily have role players fulfill that role, and we see this with guys like Draymond and Diaw.

One thing that I thought was funny... The Warriors have tried to draft the power forward of their future so many times via the draft. We've tried Ike Diogu, Anthony Randolph, Brandan Wright, and Ekpe Udoh. All lengthy 4s with lots of defensive potential, and the guy who ends up being our PF of the future and the guy who received the most first place votes for DPoY is a stubby undersized power forward.

[Onus]

This is mainly why I was thinking Kyle Anderson would become a star at some point. Coming off a 1/4 pnr he would be able to assess the floor in an advantageous situation or be on a switch. He has the height, passing and shooting acumen to really cause havoc because of his versatility.

Being versatile is always better than being one dimensional. But the versatility still needs to include that stretch capability even if you're only avg at it.

[Dr Spaceman]

Spoiler:

Good observations, although if you're perhaps alluding that ''these teams are showing sings that having a good playmaking option at the 4 is potentially more advantageous for the offense as having a player that can stretch the floor and shoot''; well I'll say there needs to be a specific combination of both.

It is true that all the players you mentioned above have the common denominator of being good/great playmakers, but another parallel they share as well is that they are a threat to score from long distance (ok, Josh Smith is well... at least the way he's playing right now, we can't argue with that). If these guys weren't respectable from long range in the first place their playmaking would be severely limited. I won't say it would be completely useless, because the way these guys pass off the roll would still be pretty good.

I'd say this is just an extension to the ''stretch 4'' concept. Guys like Bosh and Ibaka aren't really great playmakers but they still help the offense by stretching the floor from that 4,5 spot. Some teams however (like the ones you mentioned) realized that if you got a relatively big player on your roster that is talented at passing/making plays and can shoot well it actually gives the offense more options, so it's better to play a Josh Smith over Jones at that spot (as long as Smith is making his shots at a relatively efficient clip), it's better to play a Draymond Green there over Lee etc. The offense just becomes much more flexible when the ball eventually arrives to said players. You maybe sacrifice a couple percents of shooting efficiency for much better playmaking, and it amplifies your ability to convert in transition and get in transition too, and at the end it looks like it works out.

Definitely some good thoughts here. One thing I'd clarify: When I'm talking about stretch bigs above, I'm generally referring to guys who shoot well as their primary function, and are good enough shooters that they actually warp defenses toward stopping them. The elite guys. Now obviously these guys are all good outside shooters, and you're absolutely right to point that out. But I'd make a clear distinction between a 35% shooter like Draymond and a player like Channing Frye or Spencer Hawes. Also just as a general thought, I think more and more being a 35+% shooter from distance is basically just a necessity to be a starter in the NBA at the 4 smallest positions. So while these guys are definitely good shooters and that contributes, we're talking about different player archetypes here.

Although, as you note, it's really really difficult to be a great playmaker if you're not at least a threat to shoot. So that should definitely be considered in this.

I think the two teams to pay attention to here are Houston and Golden State, because they're doing some funky things on defense with these guys. Essentially both of these teams are using their 4s as point of attack defenders, meaning they basically throw themselves in the thick of offensive plays, trying to blow up PNRs at the head and forcing turnovers and such. With Howard and Bogut on the backline, the teams trap and switch basically without penalty. It's cool stuff.

Over in the East I wanted to mention Millsap and Pierce, but they're reaches a little bit. Pierce is basically in for his scoring so whatever. But Millsap definitely plays that style of defense, and he's doing a lot more off-the-dribble work than years past as opposed to being a post-up guy. So interesting stuff.Greek Freak is a fun player for a lot of reasons, but I think his development will be really key to keep an eye on. He's a poor shooter, but a wicked playmaker and gigantic mismatch at the 4. If he bulks up and can play great defense, look out.

[Dr Spaceman]

And of course as I say this Zach Lowe Drops this bomb in his column:

Smith is flinging up garbage, and the Rockets have scored just 88 points per 100 possessions with Smith and Howard on the floor — a sub-Sixers number.

Although maybe the right explanation for this is just that Smith sucks. Which is exactly what we thought in the first place.

[bleeds_purple]

And of course as I say this Zach Lowe Drops this bomb in his column:

Smith is flinging up garbage, and the Rockets have scored just 88 points per 100 possessions with Smith and Howard on the floor — a sub-Sixers number.

Although maybe the right explanation for this is just that Smith sucks. Which is exactly what we thought in the first place.

Smith sucks because he's got no BBIQ. Put Diaw in Smith's body and he will be the MVP of the damn league. Slight exaggeration but not really.

If I was coaching Smith I would lock him in a room 1984 style and force him to watch thousands of hours Diaw, muttering "do you see?, do you see?" ala https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2whrQTHp7U.

[thizznation]

I agree that having a PF with playmaking ability is better than a lights out shooting 4. It isn't a mystery why all the top offenses in the league right now have a PF that can do this.


If you don't have a PF that can handle the ball and make plays, chances are your center isn't going to be able to do this as well. So if this is the case all of a sudden you only have 3 players with playmaking ability. Now your offense is a lot more stagnant as your ball movement decreases drastically. Part of the reason for success of GS is being able to keep moving the ball until you finally get a good opportunity. This is a lot more difficult to the borderline of impossible with only 3 ball handlers.


It also keeps the opposing center more honest. If he leaves his man to try to help collapse on the paint then your PF can find your C for an easy lob or a easy dunk from the restricted area. It has been astounding how many times HOU and LA have done this in particular.

[Dr Positivity]

Good post, it feels like a natural step in the PF's progression from "the smaller big" to "the bigger forward". Like how there's some good passers and guns who can run pick and roll at the 3, there is at the 4 as well.

[GYK]

I agree. I always stood by "most playmakers" win.

[Onus]

A few executives have dumped the term “stretch 4” altogether and replaced it with “playmaking 4” — a term I’m officially stealing right now. Shooting is nice, but it’s not enough anymore as defenses get smarter, faster, and more flexible working within the loosened rules. Spot-up guys have to be able to catch the ball, pump-fake a defender rushing out at them, drive into the lane, and make some sort of play. If they can’t manage that, a possession dies with them.

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/we-in ... s-rebirth/

Looks like OP was on the right path

[immortalone23]

Because of this topic, do you guys think Minnesota should draft Towns first?

[Dr Positivity]

A few executives have dumped the term “stretch 4” altogether and replaced it with “playmaking 4” — a term I’m officially stealing right now. Shooting is nice, but it’s not enough anymore as defenses get smarter, faster, and more flexible working within the loosened rules. Spot-up guys have to be able to catch the ball, pump-fake a defender rushing out at them, drive into the lane, and make some sort of play. If they can’t manage that, a possession dies with them.

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/we-in ... s-rebirth/

Looks like OP was on the right path

Excellent article but I feel like the "spot up" guys like Korver, Ryno, Frye, etc. mentioned in the article are written off too quickly as only nice

Korver is having a bad postseason... but so is Jeff Teague... and Paul Millsap... and Dennis Schroeder... and Carroll who has a spot-up driven game, is the one excelling. Their analogs Indiana last season had a similar postseason swoon that involved two players very different from Korver, in George and Hibbert, going in the tank. Korver is still coming off a regular season that broke the ceiling for the value of a spot-up jumpshooter and his playoff drop has been over a small sample size. For all we know Korver could still be the most valuable offensive Hawks in the playoffs. His TS% is .557 compared to Horford (.536), Millsap (.500), Teague (.499) while providing his unique nuclear spacing the floor effect. Carroll is .61 TS% so combined with his upped scoring numbers he may be the best offensive Hawk this PS but he also draws less attention than Korver so there's a case for either. So there's a lot of reasons to still believe Kyle Korver = a still very positive season for the value of a spot-up jump shooter compared to what we used to think. The reason for his playoff numbers could be related to playing 37mpg after a season where he had to work harder to get shots than he ever had before, or that the Hawks passing for whatever reason just couldn't maintain and that hurt everyone, or there's a feud within the Hawks that we don't know about like 2 of Teague, Millsap and Schroeder hating each other or something.

Ryan Anderson and Channing Frye fell off but Ryno has been through a lot physically and emotionally and in spite of that there's a still a good case he had a more valuable offensive season than Draymond. Frye is 32 and has had a career inconsistently alternating between excellent role player and frustratingly soft/complacent so that contract blowing up in ORL's face can be expected for other reasons. Saying these types of players aren't as lethal as they were a few years ago because of the league catching up doesn't make the most sense to me when Korver and Redick and some other players like Patrick Patterson had career years. Ryno isn't close to Draymond Green overall but I would say that still has everything to do with defense.

[Onus]

A few executives have dumped the term “stretch 4” altogether and replaced it with “playmaking 4” — a term I’m officially stealing right now. Shooting is nice, but it’s not enough anymore as defenses get smarter, faster, and more flexible working within the loosened rules. Spot-up guys have to be able to catch the ball, pump-fake a defender rushing out at them, drive into the lane, and make some sort of play. If they can’t manage that, a possession dies with them.

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/we-in ... s-rebirth/

Looks like OP was on the right path

Excellent article but I feel like the "spot up" guys like Korver, Ryno, Frye, etc. mentioned in the article are written off too quickly as only nice

Korver is having a bad postseason... but so is Jeff Teague... and Paul Millsap... and Dennis Schroeder... and Carroll who has a spot-up driven game, is the one excelling. Their analogs Indiana last season had a similar postseason swoon that involved two players very different from Korver, in George and Hibbert, going in the tank. Korver is still coming off a regular season that broke the ceiling for the value of a spot-up jumpshooter and his playoff drop has been over a small sample size. For all we know Korver could still be the most valuable offensive Hawks in the playoffs. His TS% is .557 compared to Horford (.536), Millsap (.500), Teague (.499) while providing his unique nuclear spacing the floor effect. Carroll is .61 TS% so combined with his upped scoring numbers he may be the best offensive Hawk this PS but he also draws less attention than Korver so there's a case for either. So there's a lot of reasons to still believe Kyle Korver = a still very positive season for the value of a spot-up jump shooter compared to what we used to think. The reason for his playoff numbers could be related to playing 37mpg after a season where he had to work harder to get shots than he ever had before, or that the Hawks passing for whatever reason just couldn't maintain and that hurt everyone, or there's a feud within the Hawks that we don't know about like 2 of Teague, Millsap and Schroeder hating each other or something.

Ryan Anderson and Channing Frye fell off but Ryno has been through a lot physically and emotionally and in spite of that there's a still a good case he had a more valuable offensive season than Draymond. Frye is 32 and has had a career inconsistently alternating between excellent role player and frustratingly soft/complacent so that contract blowing up in ORL's face can be expected for other reasons. Saying these types of players aren't as lethal as they were a few years ago because of the league catching up doesn't make the most sense to me when Korver and Redick and some other players like Patrick Patterson had career years. Ryno isn't close to Draymond Green overall but I would say that still has everything to do with defense.

I agree with you, Lowe lumps in stretch 4s with one dimensional players at other various positions, which somewhat detracts from his main point. However, I think he's trying to allude to the fact that you want multifaceted players or jack of all trade type players rather than specialists, which is a whole different argument.

Ryan Anderson is a very valuable offensive piece that can distort defenses in ways Draymond can't. Same with Channing Frye, but they rely heavily on being able to hit shots, which if they're off or are being covered in ways that can't get shots off their offensive value gets minimized. Not taking into account of the spacing and gravity they attract. This is the main reason why Frye is so inconsistent, he can't really do anything other than shoot. What Lowe says because he has no other skill you can get away with just playing a regular sf on him without it being a mismatch and then Frye becomes the mismatch. So it would help if the "stretch 4" could do more.

A player like Diaw is more valuable because not only does he have the stretch ability but he can post mismatches, find open cutters and do other things. This is mostly in response to all the switching that is taking place now. An elite shooter still has a place but they're going to have to find other ways to impact the game once defenses begin the switching mayhem.

[penbeast0]

Good observations, although if you're perhaps alluding that ''these teams are showing sings that having a good playmaking option at the 4 is potentially more advantageous for the offense as having a player that can stretch the floor and shoot''; well I'll say there needs to be a specific combination of both.

It is true that all the players you mentioned above have the common denominator of being good/great playmakers, but another parallel they share as well is that they are a threat to score from long distance (ok, Josh Smith is well... at least the way he's playing right now, we can't argue with that). If these guys weren't respectable from long range in the first place their playmaking would be severely limited. I won't say it would be completely useless, because the way these guys pass off the roll would still be pretty good.

I'd say this is just an extension to the ''stretch 4'' concept. Guys like Bosh and Ibaka aren't really great playmakers but they still help the offense by stretching the floor from that 4,5 spot. Some teams however (like the ones you mentioned) realized that if you got a relatively big player on your roster that is talented at passing/making plays and can shoot well it actually gives the offense more options, so it's better to play a Josh Smith over Jones at that spot (as long as Smith is making his shots at a relatively efficient clip), it's better to play a Draymond Green there over Lee etc. The offense just becomes much more flexible when the ball eventually arrives to said players. You maybe sacrifice a couple percents of shooting efficiency for much better playmaking, and it amplifies your ability to convert in transition and get in transition too, and at the end it looks like it works out.

Does a guy like Anthony Mason work in this (good playmaking, limited range)? Or is Mutnt right and your playmaking 4 needs range as well.

[rrravenred]

I suppose the question is how you move players around on offence to get your team the highest percentage play. Part of that is yourself as a threat to score, requiring your direct opposite to deny you room and therefore create it elsewhere (See Bogut, Andrew on Allen, Tony for an illustration of how the inverse of this principle operates). But that predicates you being the one to receive the ball (or more accurately, to not receive the ball, but to threaten to receive it). Being a passing threat AS A BIG depends on where you get the ball, what threat you are to score from there, and how your team is able to move when you have the ball (because, as a big, you generally won't be dribbling around in any way that challenges the defence).

For example, the aforementioned Bogut is a fairly good passer and generated about 5.7 points for every ball-handling related turnover. However, he is not a scoring threat on his own (thanks, Amare!) which means that the threat he represents without passing the ball is relatively limited, especially as he is generally receiving the ball in the high-post. When he gets the ball, only his own man needs to worry about him, and the rest of the team can pay attention to their cover / zone shape etc.

Now to take Draymond Green as another example, he is also a relatively good passer, generating about 6.8 points per ball handling related turnover. He is an inconsistent threat from 3 (.334) and can also spot up. He has to be played a lot closer, and the team's defence has to be aware of him as a scoring threat on his own behalf, as well as his ability to pass to the Splash brothers, Iggy, etc.

More and higher-percentage opportunities are available to Dray because of his individual scoring ability, when paired with his (in my view) inferior passing ability. This, of course, doesn't speak to the distorting effect of just having him quietly sitting in the corner, ready to gather the skip pass and launch. (APM might be a one tool to measure the efficacy of that).

As a counter example, consider Demarcus Cousins. Magnificent weapon that he is, he only averages 2.9 points per turnover (yes, his team is a bit less stacked than GSW), but it's also worth noting that he doesn't have a massive amount of range, limiting the positions he can credibly receive the ball in to be both a scoring AND a passing threat.

As to what this means in an evolutionary sense, I think sophisticated inside-the-arc defences and the advance of the 3 as a reliable team scoring weapon (contra P-Jax) requires that all players are needed to be active participants in the offensive scheme. The decline of the iso, either on the block or on the perimeter means that the ability to distribute the offense is no longer just a point guard's responsibility, but a team imperative. We are all the Championship Trailblazers now, and Nu School players need to either have those skills on drafting or to quickly acquire them over their first few seasons.

[Joao Saraiva]

The thing is spacing is important. It doesn't have to come from your PF. It doesn't have to come from your PG, SG, SF or C. It just has to be there.

3 players spacing the floor is essential. After that it all comes to ball movement.

If your PG is Rondo then you definitely need a stretch 4. If you have Curry, Klay and Barnes on the perimeter, then who cares about the stretch floor.