RealGM

Why do many fans say that running and gunning doesn't work in the playoffs. I feel in you have the right players in your system then it can work for you. The Warriors and the Suns have failed every year and I know that, but they had small and might I add weak rebounding front lines. The Lakers of this year have run more and it has worked for them because they have players that can rebound two 7 fotters and a 6 foot 10 guy. The Suns of now can do it as well with O'Neal 7 foot 1, Stoudemire 6 foot 11, and Hill 6 foot 8 can rebound well. If you have a reason for it not working please state it.

Phoenix Mercury won the last WNBA championship. It could work for phoenix, if Nash and Stoudamire were such sissies at defense.

Duiz wrote:Phoenix Mercury won the last WNBA championship. It could work for phoenix, if Nash and Stoudamire were such sissies at defense.

Oh okay this is a first a Laker fan making a case for the Suns but here goes: Nash couldn't defend a paper bag. Stoudemire is just good for getting block here and there

joe.linnen wrote:-= original quote snipped =-




Oh okay this is a first a Laker fan making a case for the Suns but here goes: Nash couldn't defend a paper bag. Stoudemire is just good for getting block here and there

Don't worry dude. There is a reason why the Hornets and Jazz abuse the Suns at ease.

You know, he did include the Warriors in that question. Care to share your thoughts on them? Or is this just a "bash on PHX" opportunity?

At any rate, STAT was only a "sissy" because he had to worry about foul trouble. He doesn't have to worry about that as much anymore since the SHAQ pickup, and it's shown in his numbers. He's been posting solid rebound numbers next to Shaq every night. Since the Shaq pickup, however, the Suns have had to alter their playing style, losing the flash they are known for.

At this point, the Warriors arguably play run n' gun better than the Suns did. However, they share the same problem the Suns had, being too small. When you face up against teams that have a big player in the paint, he just sucks up rebounds like a black hole. Therefore, they may create more possessions and put up more points playing fast paced basketball, but their opponent is able to grab most the missed shots on both ends of the floor. This also creates more possessions and makes up for missed shots via second chance opportunities.

See this thread made lately:

http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=777580

Multiple truthful posts in there on this.

Like you said, it can work, but it's just that a lot of teams who have been speed-ball teams or having it significantly in their game, haven't been built the way the Celtics and Lakers special teams of the past have been. Which, the former, isn't the way to go.

I completely disagree on the new-look Phoenix, though. As they are weaker and missing on certain aspects.

I think it isnt the running that is the problem, it is the lack of defence. When you play someone 7 games in a row, after those first two games it is always about the adjustments each team makes and usually those adjustments come on the defensive end.

A team that doesnt play defence, or doesnt care about defence cant make those adjustments successfully, so when the other team adjusts to their offence they end up getting screwed

That is a serious part of it ^.

Didn't we have this thread 2 days ago?

As has been discussed previously, the problem with modern-era run-and-gun squads is that they usually go to small and also evidence problems on defense and with rebounding.

The successful running squads of days past didn't have that issue, they D'd up well, rebounded VERY well and were capable of scoring effectively in the half court just as easily as in transition.

Take a look at the '87 Lakers some time, especially in that second game against the Celtics in the regular season. A very clear run-and-gun team (the Showtime Lakers), they were getting worked a bit on the glass by the Cs and the Boston transition defense was killing L.A.'s fast break.

So what did they do in the second half? Aggressive denial of the passing lanes, really tight rotations and quick close-outs on jump shooters... they managed to force the ball out of Bird's hands so much so that he took like 2 shots all throughout the fourth quarter and none until the dying moments (same sort of deal with McHale, though to be fair, both got to the line a bit).

They worked some side- and midscreens, pounded the ball into Kareem (who scored I think 8 of his 10 points in the fourth), got good cuts when the ball went into Kareem or Worthy and otherwise made good use of their various options.

That sort of gives you a snapshot of what a successful running team does; the Lakers were routinely around 10th in the league in pace, with the exception of the '82 title. They could and did run off of anything, including made baskets, but they had patience and halfcourt execution to go with defense and loads of rebounding (Kareem, Worthy, Magic... even Mychal Thompson, that year.

That's how you run as a team.

And actually, the Celtics did a good job of it too. They had people throwing baseball passes and pushing it off the made baskets and stuff... they weren't as fast as the Lakers because of a disparity in athleticism but they did it anyway (which proves how stupid a coach has to be to think he can't run with bigs, especially athletic bigs from the modern era).

The Cs had great rebounding, so they'd usually have one or two guys cherry-picking (Bird and DJ, Parish and DJ, DJ and Ainge, etc) and then whoever corralled the rebound would send a bullet pass up the sideline or bomb it down to the guy who had booked it as soon as he saw the board was theirs. The Cs did a LOT of this in that game against the Lakers. Transition defense will stop a lot of these but looking for them and sending cheaters back because you have great rebounding will open that sort of thing up for you.

That's how a good running team operates, how good transition offense occurs. Yes, the Lakers would routinely set Magic to pushing the ball up the court off the dribble but you'd see them just as often looking for the guy behind the defense or the quick pass to the guy ahead of the halfcourt line, who'd then give it back to Magic.

Anyway, the point is that people don't assemble or manage running teams the way they used to, which is why they don't succeed.

Don Nelson refuses to make use of size and that kills his teams. Mike D'Antoni (and Nelson) are horrid defensive coaches, too.

Nellie knows all about creating interesting mismatches and unconventional tactics and suchlike, he's a brilliant coach. But he's lacked significant postseason success for a reason (though to be fair, his Milwaukee teams in the 80s mostly ran into superior competition rather than any failing of the team or the coach).

D'Antoni sets up nice transition lanes and coaches the sidescreen really well but the Suns aren't terribly good in the halfcourt. They've been improving lately with Shaq but they are still pretty awkward and furtive in that regard, inconsistent about their approach. Some of that is the coach (preparation, implementation), some of that is the players, so you can't entirely blame the coaching staff. But you're talking about systems run by guys who don't do it properly.

But yeah, to return to the point, the Suns have to worry pretty seriously about how well Stoudemire and Nash will perform on defense in the playoffs. New Orleans and L.A. are going to eat them alive at the 1 and the 4 (respectively, and of course L.A. also fields Kobe and Grant Hill isn't exactly Michael Cooper), Utah's going to attack with Deron Williams and Carlos Boozer, I mean there are a lot of elite WC teams with dangerous weapons at those positions and that bodes ill for the Suns.

EDIT: That said, Shaquille O'neal presents his own mismatches, opens things up immensely for Amare and does offer some increased defensive presence in the middle. He's also been hugely effective for them on the defensive glass and that's been a big part of their improved defense because he's preventing offensive boards for the other team... and getting them himself on the other end.

^^ lol Tsherkin said a mouthful but I agree with him. The Suns have always been great in transition but not as good in the half court. They are doing better at that now with Shaq and Amare turning into a go to guy but their transition game is probably slipping a little bit without Marion. I think D'Antoni and Nelly both need to work on playing their benches more and developing players but I'm sure it's hard in the West when they have to worry about even making the playoffs. Don't worry Tsherkin I'm not here to argue with you.

Yes, I agree that playing a deeper rotation would be smarter. But don't expect it to happen. Nellie's stubborn and old and hasn't evolved as a coach over the last quarter century, so it's not going to happen now. He did do a pretty good job of priming Dallas for success after his departure, though.

Phoenix needs to stop playing a 7-man rotation though, for sure. And Golden State needs to start using Brandan Wright.

My 2 cents are a lot of running and gunning baskets are based on the other team being lazy and not getting back on defense. In Playoffs players stop being lazy and take away these easy looks. And most Run'n'Gun team have trouble in the half court.

The Sixers of now, and the Sixers with AI were really a run and gun type of team.

They basically outhustled you down the court, but the Sixers also outrebounded you, and got alot of steals because of their hustle and having a great shotblock in the middle.

And now with great athlethes on the wing, and the best alley-oop passer in the league the Sixers are able to run and successfully run more and more.

tsherkin wrote:Yes, I agree that playing a deeper rotation would be smarter. But don't expect it to happen. Nellie's stubborn and old and hasn't evolved as a coach over the last quarter century, so it's not going to happen now. He did do a pretty good job of priming Dallas for success after his departure, though.

Phoenix needs to stop playing a 7-man rotation though, for sure. And Golden State needs to start using Brandan Wright.

Ironically, in addition to some of the reasons suggested, I am of the opinion that one of the reasons 'run and gun' teams fail come the playoffs is that they tend to stress significant depth, and that beyond 2 or 3 key subs, playoffs tend to lessen the impact of depth, and top heavier teams do better.

I would also suggest that in general refs are more lenient in the playoffs, and as such physical teams tend to do slightly better and less physical teams slightly worse than in the regular season.

To recap all the reasons I see why run and gun, and by extension, smaller, less physical, and often less defensive oriented teams tend to be better built for the regular season than the playoffs;

*they emphasize depth and when facing teams trying to keep a handle on their star's minutes, often exploit advantageous bench mismatches.

*they tend to be more ref protected vs. more physical interior teams by calls that won't be made as readily come the playoff.

*their style of play tends to take advantage of being somewhat unusual and requiring a significant adjustment from the other team, something teams are much less able and willing to do in the regular season, and much more willing to do when facing only that teams for a 7 game series.

*they tend to be less efficient in the half-court, making tempo control much more important and, because of a few of the issues mentioned above, less easy to achieve, resulting in their often getting bogged down in games ill-suited to their style or personnel.

*they tend to emphasize the types of players who are much less well-rounded and offense-oriented, or at least players whose defense abilities tend to be more perimeter oriented. This, along with several other factors, tends to be something which bad or average teams will exploit less consistently than the kind of good teams they'll face in the playoffs.

* they tend to be lacking dominant rebounders, or possessing only rebounders who achieve through lack of alternatives/volume rather than being the type to impose their will when needed, and those kinds of possessions become more and more crucial in the playoffs.

The thing is, all these factors work for all other teams too, so as the playoffs progress, teams with dominant interiors and defense will tend to survive playoff attrition more, thus making it more and more likely the higher you go that a run and gun team will face that kind of team or teams, and each one comes without all those disadvantages. So while run and gun/small ball teams will often excel in the regular season, and will even periodically pull off a playoff round or 2, each level they rise makes it less and less likely that their weaknesses won't meet with a disadvantageous match up.

Harry Palmer wrote:Ironically, in addition to some of the reasons suggested, I am of the opinion that one of the reasons 'run and gun' teams fail come the playoffs is that they tend to stress significant depth, and that beyond 2 or 3 key subs, playoffs tend to lessen the impact of depth, and top heavier teams do better.

A playoff rotation of 7 or 8 guys is fine*; a regular season rotation like that is not wise. And I can't think of a run-and-gun team that was killed by its reliance on depth, off-hand. Could you provide an example?

* EDIT:

So long as you're not stupid. D'Antoni leaves guys in who are ice cold, ignores favorable defensive matchups presented by his bench players, that sort of deal. He's like Sam Mitchell, it is as if the concept of matchups is foreign to him and he has no idea how to effectively manipulate his pieces. I'd love to play him in chess, if that's the kind of mind he has.

All 4 great posts there ^... and couldn't of said it better HP.