Any chess player will tell you, to control the game, you have to control the center of the board.
I have always wondered why a coach wouldn't send 3-4 guys to crash the offensive glass, and get an extra 5-7 shots per game out of it ala Sixers, Cleveland.
Parish, Mchale, Bird was off course a prime example of this. (Perk, KG, Pierce)
However, i'm not talking about just offense, i'm talking about the ability to shut down, clog the middle, with shot blockers, aka Perk and KG.
That is why i believe, its the emerging of Perk as a true C that will get us across the finish line.
With this thread i'd like to show my appreciation for the hardest worker on the team, sans KG. From shutting down Bynum, to taking it hard to Cleveland and Detroit, Perk has grown into a beast of epic proportions.
Also remember how Twin Mini-Towers Big Baby and Powe were able to hold their own in the stretch without KG and Perk. The reason: They both crash the glass non-stop.
A Chess Analogy
Moderators: bisme37, Froob, Darthlukey, Shak_Celts, Parliament10, canman1971, shackles10, snowman
A Chess Analogy
-
nightstarstolen
- Banned User
- Posts: 153
- And1: 0
- Joined: Mar 10, 2008
-
Fencer reregistered
- RealGM
- Posts: 41,038
- And1: 27,915
- Joined: Oct 25, 2006
Actually, Richard Reti proved in 1924 it isn't that simple. And from Spassky onward (Fischer was a throwback), edge play has been even more balanced in importance vs. center.
What's important is moving fluidly. Control of the center is important mainly as an aid to that. Traditionally, whoever controlled the center had shorter and clearer lines of movement. But if one can achieve that without controlling the center, one also prevails.
What's important is moving fluidly. Control of the center is important mainly as an aid to that. Traditionally, whoever controlled the center had shorter and clearer lines of movement. But if one can achieve that without controlling the center, one also prevails.
Banned temporarily for, among other sins, being "Extremely Deviant".
-
nightstarstolen
- Banned User
- Posts: 153
- And1: 0
- Joined: Mar 10, 2008
Very insightful and i agree with you that it is not the end all, be all.
Yet as i have played, against very high level opponents, the pattern of controlling center still gave way, to the attack from sides,
aka our guards, to complete the analogy. In essence we limit the options of our opponent.
Another topic of interest:
KG's post play has picked up greatly lately, and i'm wondering if it is from our Big Guy coach, or from Doc's constantly morphing game plan.
Yet as i have played, against very high level opponents, the pattern of controlling center still gave way, to the attack from sides,
aka our guards, to complete the analogy. In essence we limit the options of our opponent.
Another topic of interest:
KG's post play has picked up greatly lately, and i'm wondering if it is from our Big Guy coach, or from Doc's constantly morphing game plan.
Re: A Chess Analogy
-
Collinto
- Sixth Man
- Posts: 1,601
- And1: 25
- Joined: Apr 10, 2001
Re: A Chess Analogy
nightstarstolen wrote:I have always wondered why a coach wouldn't send 3-4 guys to crash the offensive glass, and get an extra 5-7 shots per game out of it ala Sixers, Cleveland.
If you sent 4 guys to glass everytime, you're more likely to give up easy fast break lay-ups the times you didn't get the rebound. There is a trade off for everything.
-
Fencer reregistered
- RealGM
- Posts: 41,038
- And1: 27,915
- Joined: Oct 25, 2006
Let's drastically oversimplify the numbers as follows:
Case 1: Standard NBA. You get 25% of the rebound chances at the offensive end. You give up about 1 point per possession. Thus, each time you miss a shot you give up about .75 points.
Case 2: Everybody crashes the boards. You get about 50% of the rebound chances at the offensive end. 50% of the times the defenders get the rebound they have an unstoppable fast break and get 2 points. The other 50% of the time they have a normal possession and average 1 point. Total points you give up per miss is again .75.
But would you really get half the rebounds, while only giving up fast breaks on half the rebounds you miss? I think it would be worse than that.
Case 1: Standard NBA. You get 25% of the rebound chances at the offensive end. You give up about 1 point per possession. Thus, each time you miss a shot you give up about .75 points.
Case 2: Everybody crashes the boards. You get about 50% of the rebound chances at the offensive end. 50% of the times the defenders get the rebound they have an unstoppable fast break and get 2 points. The other 50% of the time they have a normal possession and average 1 point. Total points you give up per miss is again .75.
But would you really get half the rebounds, while only giving up fast breaks on half the rebounds you miss? I think it would be worse than that.
Banned temporarily for, among other sins, being "Extremely Deviant".
-
Fencer reregistered
- RealGM
- Posts: 41,038
- And1: 27,915
- Joined: Oct 25, 2006
Serge28 wrote:Some chess players in Boston, eh? Any of you guys play USCF?
Back in the early 1970s. I actually was the highest-rated 13 year old in the country, but at a rating of 1650.
As a basketball analogy, for those of you who don't know the chess rating system, doing that with a rating that low is more ridiculous than Marc Jackson winning NBA Rookie of the Year. Maybe it's as ridiculous as Marc Jackson winning league MVP his rookie season.