Control what you can control...
Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2023 8:01 pm
While encountering adversity during our '23 playoff run, Malcom Brogdon remarked to the media that he felt our team lacked an identity. I don't think management liked that he commented publicly, but nevertheless I think he hit on something.
When Ime became coach, he emphasized the importance of defense, he acted as if defense was of primary importance to him, and the team followed his lead. I wasn't always paying close attention tbh, but generally, as long as our guys played their part on the defensive end, other faults were forgiven. We made the jump from good defensive team to dominant defensive team. Smart went from slightly abandoning his trademark defense efforts in favor of his offense, to taking great pride in winning DPOY.
But, what I have realized, is the biggest advantage we saw was simply that we were no longer so dependent on whether our shots were falling. The team developed an identity centered around its defense; even if our shots were not falling, our guys could still take care of their responsibilities on the defensive end, they could satisfy coach by doing so, and their identity remained intact. I think this helped them keep their heads in the game, and maintain composure during stretches where things weren't going so well.
By contrast, Ime year aside, ever since Brad has been part of our franchise, it feels like we have simply placed a heavy emphasis on shooting, and to a lesser effect on hustling or otherwise being aggressive. We have signed and drafted lots of guys who were selfish, low iq, or otherwise who could be considered defensive liabilities. The constant (aside from maybe some reserve Centers) is that we like guys who can shoot, and we like guys who are aggressive on offense (if not also on the defensive end). This, btw, is a classic NCAA formula...in college talent is at a premium, so you recruit as much raw talent as possible and work around other deficiencies...anyways...
Whether by coincidence or not, this seems to have created a situation where, if our shots aren't falling, our guys tend to look a slight bit defeated and they know nothing else but to simply be aggressive. And at least on the offensive end, this often backfires because it leads to out of control hero ball where our guys would be well served to slow things down in an attempt to get on the same page as one another. And there's a domino effect.
In a simplistic sense, I think our defensive identity under Ime was effective because defense was something we could control at all times. At least, it was usually something we could control. Against the Warriors, their offense trumped our defense I guess, and perhaps we lost our identity as a result, and our guys at times reverted back to being the frontrunning losers we often saw before and after Ime. (I know, Tatum was an issue too that series)
Whereas, basing our team's identity around shooting is inherently flawed because our players have limited control over whether their shots fall on a given night. Someone is going to point to the Warriors as an argument against this, but does that argument really hold any water? Go back some years, the Warriors always started two bigs even when it started falling out of fashion. They gave big minutes to both Iggy and Dray - both guys who were mediocre shooters at best, both guys who liked to defer their own shot, both guys who played physical defense and were smart, willing passers. Steve Kerr always placed a strong emphasis on physical defense and ball movement and IMO that was key to the Warriors' success.
As an aside, Grant & Smart were the closest things we had to Dray & Iggy, I can't knock the Smart trade but letting Grant walk so easily after losing Smart disappointed me.
Anyways, question:
What is a meaningful aspect of the game that our team is well equipped to excel in, regardless of their opponent, and regardless of whether their shot is falling?
If there is a good answer to this question, IMO it needs to become central to our identity, and our management needs to act accordingly.
Also, what might make a good secondary emphasis? Under Ime, I think we lacked a secondary emphasis to help keep the team stable when its defense failed.
When Ime became coach, he emphasized the importance of defense, he acted as if defense was of primary importance to him, and the team followed his lead. I wasn't always paying close attention tbh, but generally, as long as our guys played their part on the defensive end, other faults were forgiven. We made the jump from good defensive team to dominant defensive team. Smart went from slightly abandoning his trademark defense efforts in favor of his offense, to taking great pride in winning DPOY.
But, what I have realized, is the biggest advantage we saw was simply that we were no longer so dependent on whether our shots were falling. The team developed an identity centered around its defense; even if our shots were not falling, our guys could still take care of their responsibilities on the defensive end, they could satisfy coach by doing so, and their identity remained intact. I think this helped them keep their heads in the game, and maintain composure during stretches where things weren't going so well.
By contrast, Ime year aside, ever since Brad has been part of our franchise, it feels like we have simply placed a heavy emphasis on shooting, and to a lesser effect on hustling or otherwise being aggressive. We have signed and drafted lots of guys who were selfish, low iq, or otherwise who could be considered defensive liabilities. The constant (aside from maybe some reserve Centers) is that we like guys who can shoot, and we like guys who are aggressive on offense (if not also on the defensive end). This, btw, is a classic NCAA formula...in college talent is at a premium, so you recruit as much raw talent as possible and work around other deficiencies...anyways...
Whether by coincidence or not, this seems to have created a situation where, if our shots aren't falling, our guys tend to look a slight bit defeated and they know nothing else but to simply be aggressive. And at least on the offensive end, this often backfires because it leads to out of control hero ball where our guys would be well served to slow things down in an attempt to get on the same page as one another. And there's a domino effect.
In a simplistic sense, I think our defensive identity under Ime was effective because defense was something we could control at all times. At least, it was usually something we could control. Against the Warriors, their offense trumped our defense I guess, and perhaps we lost our identity as a result, and our guys at times reverted back to being the frontrunning losers we often saw before and after Ime. (I know, Tatum was an issue too that series)
Whereas, basing our team's identity around shooting is inherently flawed because our players have limited control over whether their shots fall on a given night. Someone is going to point to the Warriors as an argument against this, but does that argument really hold any water? Go back some years, the Warriors always started two bigs even when it started falling out of fashion. They gave big minutes to both Iggy and Dray - both guys who were mediocre shooters at best, both guys who liked to defer their own shot, both guys who played physical defense and were smart, willing passers. Steve Kerr always placed a strong emphasis on physical defense and ball movement and IMO that was key to the Warriors' success.
As an aside, Grant & Smart were the closest things we had to Dray & Iggy, I can't knock the Smart trade but letting Grant walk so easily after losing Smart disappointed me.
Anyways, question:
What is a meaningful aspect of the game that our team is well equipped to excel in, regardless of their opponent, and regardless of whether their shot is falling?
If there is a good answer to this question, IMO it needs to become central to our identity, and our management needs to act accordingly.
Also, what might make a good secondary emphasis? Under Ime, I think we lacked a secondary emphasis to help keep the team stable when its defense failed.
