Within the current rules/PO whistle... can a team really shut down a good passer/shooter big man?

[Rubios]

Hello.
I've left some time pass to gain some perspective.

My intention is not for this thread to focus on OKC defense on Jokic in game 7, but to analyze this new defensive "meta" we are watching in OKC and Pacers, mostly.
I've watched many, many games, and developed a certain "eye" to understand it. I am much more insightful in... European football or boxing, i.e.

So I'd love to read your knowledge and insight.

My point is: this tactic seems to work wonders, and I can't figure out WHY.

I find three pretty obvious flaws:

1. If the big man has three opponents guarding him, his team mates must have free highways to the rim. A big man should be tall enough to see and throw those passes.

2. The big man has enough size and height to make contested shots. Shots from a position that's almost muscular memory for him to hit.
Even with low TS%, three guys on him means pretty much uncontested offensive rebounds.

3. The big man could go full Curry and pick the ball 8 meters away from the basket. And bomb 3s. Jokic was averaging nearly 40%, his team was in 20%s that night.
Again, three dudes on him means a feast on offensive rebounding.


So, what I am missing? What I don't get?

Thks in advance

[Alatan]

You are missing the off ball wrestling to deny the ball to Jokic and you are missing all the bricks thrown when OKC defenders sagged of Denvers shooters daring them to beat them from range because they are crowding the paint. And you are missing the foul barrage OKC plays by daring the referees to turn the game into a free throw shooting exhibition.

[Ugly0598]

Very difficult to stop a team with 5 players that can shoot the ball.

[Rubios]

Very difficult to stop a team with 5 players that can shoot the ball.

Exactly my point.

I'd add that this defense should allow the team to drive to the rim for uncontested loops or lay-ups at will.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

If you sell out, you can stop anybody, unless the rest of the team makes you pay for it.

[tsherkin]

Very difficult to stop a team with 5 players that can shoot the ball.

And if one or two of those guys are pretty bad / inconsistent, then you're in deep, deep trouble.

[Rubios]

Could some of you develop a bit?

Thks in advance.

[ShootersShoot]

Very difficult to stop a team with 5 players that can shoot the ball.

And if one or two of those guys are pretty bad / inconsistent, then you're in deep, deep trouble.

Okc seems to be fine with having a non shooter in the SL

[tsherkin]

Very difficult to stop a team with 5 players that can shoot the ball.

And if one or two of those guys are pretty bad / inconsistent, then you're in deep, deep trouble.

Okc seems to be fine with having a non shooter in the SL

Right, but OKC has a LOT of different scoring talent and routes to baskets. If jumpers aren't falling, Denver is in considerably more trouble. Plus, OKC is a titanic defense on top of all that, which increases margin of error. There is a reason they won 68 games and Denver won 50, and it isn't that Shai is better than Jokic.

[Billl]

"So, what I am missing? What I don't get?"

The problem with the argument isn't that a big man who can pass and shoot at an elite level can completely open up an offense. The problem is finding anyone that can do that and also be a reasonable defender. If you can do those things, that's an MVP level guy.

You also need teammates that can consistently knock down shots and make the cuts needed to capitalize on that big's gravity. You can get guys open looks, but if they brick the shot, you still lose.

[Rubios]

Very difficult to stop a team with 5 players that can shoot the ball.

And if one or two of those guys are pretty bad / inconsistent, then you're in deep, deep trouble.

I'm the OP here, thanks for the answers.

Individualizing in Jokic/OKC series just for the sake of explaining myself better, as broken third language English is hard enough for me =)

TL;DR Sure, his mates bricked an absurd amount of open 3s that three guys on Jokic allowed.
So... why go for a 3? I'm going further: if they're not going in, why to even SHOT at all? 3 guys over a dude didn't mean literal highways to the basket?

What I'm I missing for the Nuggets just not destroying OKC with pretty much uncontested dunks and lay-ups?

Thanks in advance.

[giberish]

Very difficult to stop a team with 5 players that can shoot the ball.

And if one or two of those guys are pretty bad / inconsistent, then you're in deep, deep trouble.

I'm the OP here, thanks for the answers.

Individualizing in Jokic/OKC series just for the sake of explaining myself better, as broken third language English is hard enough for me =)

TL;DR Sure, his mates bricked an absurd amount of open 3s that three guys on Jokic allowed.
So... why go for a 3? I'm going further: if they're not going in, why to even SHOT at all? 3 guys over a dude didn't mean literal highways to the basket?

What I'm I missing for the Nuggets just not destroying OKC with pretty much uncontested dunks and lay-ups?

Thanks in advance.

The extra guys guarding Jokic tend to be near the rim. So if everybody's just trying to drive it's easy to stop. If he's out on the perimeter there aren't 3 guys on him. Probably only 1 with help defense behind (sagging off other guys).

Really for any star player if the defense sells out enough (and is generally competent) they'll slow them down a bunch. The other guys need to also be useful to make an effective offense (obviously having an elite offensive guy as the focus helps a ton but the other 4 guys also matter). Having the best player doesn't mean that you'll win a series, basketball is a 5 on 5 game (and to get through a 48 minute playoff game you need 2 or 3 useful bench guys as well).

This entire post feels like the tired argument of 'team X beat team Y so team X's best player is clearly better than team Y's best player'