RealGM

Some potential questions to drive the conversation (feel free to answer any or all of them, or add your own thoughts on the topic in general ):

1) How do you personally define spacing? What must a player be able to do to properly space the floor?

2) What are your thoughts on spacing prior to the 3pt era? Did it exist in any meaningful form? Which innovations/rule-changes (triangle offense, Rudy T's schemes, shortened 3pt line, SSOL Suns, 2.9 era defense/Thibs, cracking down on hand-checking, etc.) contributed most to the evolution of spacing in your opinion?

3) What's the relationship between spacing and pacing? Should you ever pass up an open three? Thoughts on transition threes?

4) How much value does a low-post big add to spacing? How much does proper spacing help out a low-post big? How good of a pacer do you need your big to be in a low-post isolation offense? Thoughts in general on a 4-out-1-in floor configuration? Notable examples of good and poor floor spacing around low-post scoring bigs?

5) Thoughts on stretch-4s and stretch-5s in general? Notable such players all-time and today? How much does a big who can play the high post (in terms of shooting, passing) improve your floor spacing (and is it worth the tradeoff in terms of offensive rebounding)?

fpliii wrote:Some potential questions to drive the conversation (feel free to answer any or all, or add your own thoughts on the topic in general ):

1) How do you personally define spacing? What must a player be able to do to properly space the floor?

2) What are your thoughts on spacing prior to the 3pt era? Did it exist in any meaningful form? Which innovations/rule-changes (triangle offense, Rudy T's schemes, shortened 3pt line, SSOL Suns, 2.9 era defense/Thibs, cracking down on hand-checking, etc.) contributed most to the evolution of spacing in your opinion?

3) What's the relationship between spacing and pacing? Should you ever pass up an open three? Thoughts on transition threes?

4) How much value does a low-post big add to spacing? How much does proper spacing help out a low-post big? How good of a pacer do you need your big to be in a low-post isolation offense? Thoughts in general on a 4-out-1-in floor configuration? Notable examples of good and poor floor spacing around low-post scoring bigs?

5) Thoughts on stretch-4s and stretch-5s in general? Notable such players all-time and today? How much does a big who can play the high post (in terms of shooting, passing) improve your floor spacing (and is it worth the tradeoff in terms of offensive rebounding)?

(1) Move to (and stand in) the right places on the floor. That usually mean playing angles like the deep corner. Top of the key. Foul line extended/pinch post. Elbow. Etc.

(2) Yes, it existed prior to the 3-point line. This was Holtzman's thing. The Princeton offense. I'm watching World Cup right now so I see this as a nice analogue -- you need space to be able to run and to use that space as a threat. In futbol, if you have space to shoot or pass, it's a threat. It basketball, space to operate in isolation is a threat. Players who space the floor well give other guys more room and lessen defensive reactions/rotations because they force the defense to cover more ground.

(3) You should pass up an open 3 if you aren't a very good 3-point shooter OR you can get the shot anytime you want. The goal of a possession is the get the highest EV attempt. A team "runs" an optimization calculation based on time remaining on the shot clock and opponent. Applies in transition or half court.

(4) Wait this is multiple questions. I want a bigger cut.

See No. 2. 4-out 1-in is OK. I think it has a ceiling and can be completely outperformed by richer offensive schemes that involve more movement/screening.

(5) Well OREB is a vacuum is great (it continues a possession), but in the context of this question you get something back with transition defense so I'm not overly concerned about it.

I think the spacing and stretching effect of the bigs you described is huge. SHOOTING is the most powerful offensive skill in basketball. This is because of its synergistic effects -- something the Suns started gaming with SSOL and the Spurs have taken to a new level. So the ability of a big to shoot allows his shooting value to be extracted/amplified by a number of combinations of teammates, because all they have to do is find him with the ball in that large surface area that is occupied between 15-24 ft. from the hoop. i.e. he's going to add to higher-performing offenses better than a low-post isolation player.

fpliii wrote:
1) How do you personally define spacing? What must a player be able to do to properly space the floor?

This is probably the easiest question to answer: a player contributes value as a floor spacer when the threat of him shooting is enough to prevent defenders from helping off of him.

Now the interesting part: there ar many, many ways to contribute spacing more than just shooting 3's. One of my favorite examples of an unconventional floor spacer was Tyson Chandler. The threat of him hanging around and being able to finish lobs at the rim at great percentages meant that opposing centers were hesitant to help off of him, which led to a lot of guys like Raymond Felton having unprecedented (for him) success at finishing around the rim.

Another big time floor spacer who's not a shooter IMO is Russell Westbrook. He's got arguably the quickest first step in the league, and the threat of him exploding by a backpedaling defender is too great for the defense to risk helping off him. He's just too dangerous attacking closeouts for that to be a good strategy.

Finally, guys who are really good moving without the ball are also a tremendous help to spacing. I'm talking about the Marions of the world, guys who need to be shaded by a defender all the time for the threat of them finding a seam in the D and getting an easy look.

Other than the, the obvious answer is shooting.

fpliii wrote:3) What's the relationship between spacing and pacing? Should you ever pass up an open three? Thoughts on transition threes?

1. Direct. Having good spacing generally means you've got a roster with good shooters up and down, and good shooters usually do not hesitate to pull the trigger. Mathematics tells us the answer to efficient basketball is clear: isolate with your best player, everyone else takes 3's or tries to score at the rim, and the natural consequence of taking lots of 3's and looking to get to the rim is playing at a fast pace IMO.

A good example of the inverse is the Chicago Bulls. No shooters, and no one who can get to the rim. The result is that they need to focus on minimizing number of possessions, because it's clear a larger sample size will explode their horrifically inefficient offense. On the other hand, teams good at those two areas of basketball will try to maximize the number of possessions, because the law of large numbers dictates that their efficiency advantage will grow over time.

2. Yes, you should pass up an open 3 only on a possession you are guaranteed to finish with a dunk. So, in effect, no. Don't pass up open 3's.

3. The scholar in me says yes, the coach in me says no. It's very much a case-by-case thing though, like I said if there are no defenders back you should take the dunk. Otherwise, I'm fine with transition 3's if they're open. Nash and Dirk, two of the most efficient offensive players ever, loved that shot.

fpliii wrote:4) How much value does a low-post big add to spacing? How much does proper spacing help out a low-post big? How good of a pacer do you need your big to be in a low-post isolation offense? Thoughts in general on a 4-out-1-in floor configuration? Notable examples of good and poor floor spacing around low-post scoring bigs?

Low-post bigs add no spacing. However, a good low-post player who excels at hitting shooters and cutters is a dynamite offensive value. Essentially, if I'm going to give a guy a lot of isolations in the low post, he NEEDS to be a great passer. For this reason, I'm not very high on Al Jefferson's age at all.

Again, if we define spacing as "nobody can help off of anybody", then floor spacers are a tremendous boon to low post players, as they give them the true 1-on-1 match ups they need to go to work. Of course, this again comes back to the big needing to be a good passer, as when the doubles do come the correct move is to hit the open player.

4-in-1-out has been shown to be extremely successful by the 2012-14 Heat. Of course, they have a dominant low post scorer who is also a fantastic passer. But I'd also point to the Mavericks and, at times, the Spurs as building great offenses with this configuration.

Good spacing: 2014 Heat
bad spacing: 2014 Grizzlies

fpliii wrote:5) Thoughts on stretch-4s and stretch-5s in general? Notable such players all-time and today? How much does a big who can play the high post (in terms of shooting, passing) improve your floor spacing (and is it worth the tradeoff in terms of offensive rebounding)?

In the modern era, I believe at least one of your PF or C should be a stretch big. Not necessarily even a high volume 3 point guy, but a guy who can consistently knock down jumpers. If he's only going to shoot mid-range, he needs to be able to hit them contested, ala Bosh. 2 non-shooters on the floor plummets your offense's expected outcome IMO. 3 is a death sentence.

Without making this a dissertation, I'll add a couple points:

-Spacing did exist prior to the 3-pt shot, but let's be real here: NBA offenses have taken off as teams learned how to use that line to their benefit. Ever play a pick-up game in which your team lands that ridiculous shooter? Try playing a game with that shooter by 1s and 2s, then play the same game again by 1s. That extra point makes a significant difference.

-That extra point has bred a slew of shooting specialists who can shoot the long-ball, including the stretch-4 and stretch-5. The division of labor between shooting and other offensive skills is more pronounced than it was in the infancy of the NBA, or even two decades ago. Teams today are more than willing to use roster spots on players who literally do nada on offense (or even defense) except shoot the ball when they're open.

-ElGee is correct to say that floor spacers can do more for a high-performing offense than a low-post iso player - but that's only the case if you already have a low-post player, or at least someone who can get their points in the paint. The mix of an inside game, an outside game, and a sleek offensive system that can put it toegther yields the most potent offenses. See the '14 Spurs, and the '14 Heat when their shooters weren't worthless in the playoffs.

Dr Spaceman wrote:Essentially, if I'm going to give a guy a lot of isolations in the low post, he NEEDS to be a great passer. For this reason, I'm not very high on Al Jefferson's age at all.

You see, it's funny how these guys "become" better passers when they're coupled with floor spacers. If you can put the right offense in place and keep the floor balanced on double teams in the post, the big just has to kick the ball out to the nearest shooter, and moving the ball will get the shot that you're looking for. It doesn't even have to be to the shooter who is the most open on the floor, although having a James-caliber passing post player certainly helps.

Dr Spaceman wrote:Mathematics tells us the answer to efficient basketball is clear: isolate with your best player, everyone else takes 3's or tries to score at the rim

FTR, this is a simplification of the mathematics. It's more complicated than that when you consider Game Theory; there's meta-value in non-3/layup attempts.

MisterWestside wrote:

Dr Spaceman wrote:Essentially, if I'm going to give a guy a lot of isolations in the low post, he NEEDS to be a great passer. For this reason, I'm not very high on Al Jefferson's age at all.

You see, it's funny how these guys "become" better passers when they're coupled with floor spacers. If you can put the right offense in place and keep the floor balanced on double teams in the post, the big just has to kick the ball out to the nearest shooter, and moving the ball will get the shot that you're looking for. It doesn't even have to be to the shooter who is the most open on the floor, although having a James-caliber passing post player certainly helps.

Correct, and I do wonder if I might have a different view of Big Al in another system, as the Bobcats really don't have the roster to run a hyper efficient offense.

however, it's always been a pet theory of mine that the highest value a low-post scorer brings is not the scoring itself, but the opportunities created when the exit pass is made. In other words, the most successful low-post isolation plays are ones in which the actual shot attempt is taken by a cutter or 3 point shooter. Except for extreme outliers like Shaquille, I believe the most valuable thing a low-post scorer can do is collapse and distort the defense, NOT score themselves.

For this reason, I like to look for post players who are adept at finding cutters, not just ones who can make the correct pass to the perimeter. There's making the "right" play, which most guys are capable of, and then there's making the "smart" play, which IMO is what separates the truly great.

Dr Spaceman wrote:Correct, and I do wonder if I might have a different view of Big Al in another system, as the Bobcats really don't have the roster to run a hyper efficient offense.

however, it's always been a pet theory of mine that the highest value a low-post scorer brings is not the scoring itself, but the opportunities created when the exit pass is made. In other words, the most successful low-post isolation plays are ones in which the actual shot attempt is taken by a cutter or 3 point shooter. Except for extreme outliers like Shaquille, I believe the most valuable thing a low-post scorer can do is collapse and distort the defense, NOT score themselves.

For this reason, I like to look for post players who are adept at finding cutters, not just ones who can make the correct pass to the perimeter. There's making the "right" play, which most guys are capable of, and then there's making the "smart" play, which IMO is what separates the truly great.

Can't argue with that. That's why I view non-big post-players like James, Bird, and Magic Johnson with such high esteem; they take the concept of "court vision" to another level.

fpliii wrote:Some potential questions to drive the conversation (feel free to answer any or all of them, or add your own thoughts on the topic in general ):

1) How do you personally define spacing? What must a player be able to do to properly space the floor?

2) What are your thoughts on spacing prior to the 3pt era? Did it exist in any meaningful form? Which innovations/rule-changes (triangle offense, Rudy T's schemes, shortened 3pt line, SSOL Suns, 2.9 era defense/Thibs, cracking down on hand-checking, etc.) contributed most to the evolution of spacing in your opinion?

3) What's the relationship between spacing and pacing? Should you ever pass up an open three? Thoughts on transition threes?

4) How much value does a low-post big add to spacing? How much does proper spacing help out a low-post big? How good of a pacer do you need your big to be in a low-post isolation offense? Thoughts in general on a 4-out-1-in floor configuration? Notable examples of good and poor floor spacing around low-post scoring bigs?

5) Thoughts on stretch-4s and stretch-5s in general? Notable such players all-time and today? How much does a big who can play the high post (in terms of shooting, passing) improve your floor spacing (and is it worth the tradeoff in terms of offensive rebounding)?

1) Spacing is where the offensive players are spaced out better on the floor, thus forcing the same 5 defenders to cover a larger surface area... it's physics really.

2) There was no spacing prior to the 3-point era... and even once the 3-point shot came into existence in 1980, it wasn't until the mid 90's that teams were even attempting a meaningful number of them... and it wasn't until 2005 with D'antoni (and then it went to another level again in 2011 with Carlisle) that teams had developed a formalized floor-spacing strategy based on 3-point shooting.

3) Historical data shows that in general, as 3-point attempts increase, pace decreases... the two-point eras had a much faster pace because you don't have to run offense to get a two-pointer - i.e. the eFG% of a two-pointer does not crater/nosedive when the defender contests well, whereas it does nosedive when the defender contests a 3-pointer well - accordingly, teams simply need more time to run offense to get good 3-point looks.

4) a low post big makes the spacing different - it appears to me as if coaches aren't aware yet that it is EASIER for a perimeter player to go 1-on-1 when you have the old two-point-era setup where 8 players stand in and around the painted area, and the perimeter iso player and his man go 1-on-1 on the perimeter unbothered by perimeter defenders other than his man - this is better than having 4 shooters at the 3-point line spacing the floor and then the guy going 1-on-1 has to worry about all these extra perimeter defenders reaching in or coming off their man a few steps to double-team or bother him... of course, if today's 1-on-1 perimeter player can penetrate the perimeter fortress of defenders, there is NO ONE in the paint protecting the rim - the paint is a wide open space in today's game... today's defense resembles a donut in this way - the perimeter is occupied by defenders that have to hug 3-point shooters but can double team perimeter ballhandlers easier, while the is paint wide open because all the offensive players are on the perimeter and no one allowed to be in there for more than 3 seconds anyway... this is a stark contrast from the way the paint looked in previous eras when they didn't shoot threes and there was no defensive 3 seconds - it didn't look like today's donut - it looked like a throng of twenty-somethings clamoring outside a nightclub - it was perpetually packed.. even a cursory glance at any game footage shows this..

so you can have the old-school set up with someone posting up inside and 8 players packing the paint waiting on the penetrator - this way the offensive iso player gets to go 1-on-1 on the perimeter unfettered by other perimeter defenders... or, you can have the new school setup with 4 floor-spreaders joining the iso guy on the perimeter, where the defenders of the floor spreaders are able to bother the guy trying to go 1-on-1 much easier, but the 1-on-1 guy gets to enjoy zero paint defense/at-rim protection if he can penetrate the perimeter defense.

5) Stretch 4's and the like in previous era got to use all their skills - so a guy like Larry Bird got to post up like a center, operate out of the triple-threat (pre-dribble stationary position) from the mid-range, shoot threes, and be the primary ballhandler on the perimeter.... in today's game, stretch 4's play a lot like bosh... they ONLY shoot threes to space the floor... they don't get to post up or operate out of the triple threat from the mid-range... so today's stretch 4's are nothing more than overgrown steve Kerr's - most of their height and function is completely wasted.

today's spacing isn't only about the 3-point shooting - it's about how the 3-point shot was used to create specific floor-spacing strategy in 2005 when the defensive 3 second rule came into play and hand-checking was banned... and how again in 2011, even more intensive floor-spacing strategy was created by Carlisle, that most nba teams have since copied... what this floor-spacing strategy has ultimately done is take the ability of winning a basketball game away from the players and put it into the coaches hands... the floor-spacing... the defensive 3 seconds... and the rules limiting the physicality of the defense... these things all conspire to make it so an open shot is both expected and pursued on every play in today's game - more open shots means less unique skill is required from players and player skills get commoditized (3 and D guards... and bigs only need to be able to dunk off of a point guard's creation and move their feet on defense/screen rolls) - this results in the commoditized players being moved around like chess pieces and whoever plays the best chess (Pop) wins.

today's spacing has turned basketball into glorified hot potato... no need to use skill necessary to score ON a defender anymore... if you just pass it around long enough, someone will be open to shoot it... and this is exactly how the game goes today on each possession... hot potato... that's why all those old-timers say previous eras played a tougher brand of the game... it was basketball, not hot potato.

the funniest thing about it is to watch is a guy like LeBron thoroughly buy into hot potato, and in the process turn himself into just another role player waiting for an open shot... and in the process, completely negate most of the value-add and advantage of having a unique talent like LeBron... Spurs were COMPLETELY fine with not having to divert defensive attention away from his teammates to contain LeBron's open-shot (shot-restriction) strategy... COMPLETELY fine with it.

Great discussion here, kind of a follow-up...

Is there any value to 5-out-0-in offensive sets? Or would you always want at least one guy inside?

I ask because this year, we're probably going to see some interesting lineups with Cleveland when they go small (with LeBron/Love as the "bigs"). Should they always have one of LeBron/Love posting up? Or can the offense function with all the players outside (with guys as threats to drive or cut, obviously)?

The closest thing that can relate is Durant and Ibaka playing the 4-5.

Part of it being successful is having good creators who command a double team on the drive. Cleveland will be the hardest team to defend when you have players like Irving, Waiters, and Lebron who can take you off the dribble and have an open lane. Teams may run lots of zone to counter act the drive and try to contain the three point shooters.

fpliii wrote:Great discussion here, kind of a follow-up...

Is there any value to 5-out-0-in offensive sets? Or would you always want at least one guy inside?

I ask because this year, we're probably going to see some interesting lineups with Cleveland when they go small (with LeBron/Love as the "bigs"). Should they always have one of LeBron/Love posting up? Or can the offense function with all the players outside (with guys as threats to drive or cut, obviously)?

They will generally have either LeBron/Love in the paint to utilize not only their scoring threat while in the post, but also both of their insanely high BBIQ's and passing abilities. I believe both are the best at their position at passing, and utilize them in the high post will be very enjoyable to watch.

To answer your question, I feel like you aren't utilizing the entire floor because when you have 1 player in the paint he can set screens and increase the value of the cuts/drives.

However, I am very interested in this and I would love to see if Cleveland instituted some 5-0 sets in the pre-season.

OT: Varejao really hurts this team offensively if they want to really utilize their potential to space the floor.

I'm curious who will start more games this season: Varejao, Marion, or Miller?

fpliii wrote:Some potential questions to drive the conversation (feel free to answer any or all of them, or add your own thoughts on the topic in general ):

1) How do you personally define spacing? What must a player be able to do to properly space the floor?

The most obvious way to me to tell if a team has spacing or not is to look if they have 3 point shooters, but this is not the only way a team can benefit from having spacing.

Imaging a team with 5 great 3-point shooters that for some weird reason cannot dribble the ball. They can pass to each other but they cannot dribble. Those 5 would be behind the 3-point line passing the ball to each other, but their defenders would all the time be close to them. They would not have spacing. In order to create spacing, those players would need something, they would need something to happen to make their defenders separate from them so they can enjoy from some fresh air to shoot. For instance, let's change one 3-point shooter for Shaq. Now that they have Shaq, the other team would need someone to help the guy defending him to try to stop him. The moment someone goes to do the help defense, Shaq can simply pass the ball to the 3-point shooter who was left open. In this case, Shaq would be the one to create spacing thanks to his inside dominance, even though he had the least shooting range from the entire team.

What I'm trying to say is that you don't have spacing just for having people who can shoot from outside. Obviously you need someone who is able to shoot from a respectable range. If everyone had as much shooting-range as Shaq there would be no spacing because there would be almost no meters to cover.

You can also create spacing if you are a good slasher, like Wade. Even if you can't shoot from outside like Ray Allen, if you cannot be stopped 1on1 someone will have to come to do the help defense, leaving his man open, and if you are able to pass the ball consistently you will be creating spacing for your team.

So in order to be able to properly space the floor, a player needs to be able to create mismatches.