Was Watching Game 7 of the 2001 ECF (Sixers vs Bucks)

[dhsilv2]

OP, this doesn't directly address your question, but have you factored in that in 2001 teams rarely used screens or pn'r in their regular offense and tended to always initiate via low- or-high-post or run off-ball things for mid-range shots instead? The team would have to completely change their offensive rhythm and flow to start off with a couple screens--especially screens that weren't involving a big. Still wouldn't be a bad idea or anything to use screens to isolate a bad defender, but it would require much more complete commitment to that streategy.

By the 2016 Warriors-Cavs series you're talking about almost all offense was initiated via pn'r (or at least some kind of set involving screens). It didn't really take them out of the way at all to run those screens towards the weak defender and then run your play.

Also shedding your initial defender wasn't as valuable in the pre-spaced floor days, both because you'd run into the crowded lane and because you couldn't just kick it to shooters for an open 3. So it was less valuable in general to get a weak defender to attack on the perimeter. IIRC teams tended to set up and attack mismatches in the post (whether a big or a smaller guy who had post game) back then.

EDIT: also I think that teams did attack mismatches quite a bit back then. Can remember a few series where that was pretty regular, and Iverson in particular was an obvious target for wing creators/shooters because of his size.

Very true that offense was more post-oriented back then with less PnR action. However that's also not totally relevant to the thread question.

What happened in the game just surprised and fascinated me after being so used to seeing the opposite done for coming on a decade now, and was worth remarking on.

But the question I asked in the OP wasn't "why didn't teams attack weak links more back then?", nor was it being critical of them for not doing so.

The thread question was, "What if they did?"

A hypothetical thought experiment -- not a retroactive critique.

Pick and roll. Both defenders double Iverson. Option A: Iverson ends up with the ball with 2 defenders on him (or 1.5 considering the injury.) Option B. Snow ends up with the ball but can't do anything with it given his offensive limitations.

I think it's hard for people to think about having guys on the court who were such 0's on offense that you couldn't really use them. But in that era it wasn't uncommon to have at least 1 guy who just didn't have much if any offense.

[Speedlot]

When I think mismatch players, I always think of Lamar Odom. He would've been so good in today's game.

[Black Jack]

Some guys wouldn't have been able to be starters like say Mark Eaton who had probably a 0% mobility rating.

That said "old school" coaches were often so pig headed no way they would have gone for hunting slow players / mismatches repeatedly. It was a "guard your man like a man" league.

The pick-n-roll was viewed as a gimmick even when Stockton & Malone were riding it to great success and big stats.

[Ito]

A thread assuming they could guard Iverson just say u wasn’t there

[LakerLegend]

You think teams didn’t know to attack weak defenders?

[tamaraw08]

During Heat/Knicks PO series few years ago, Butler rolled his ankle but stayed on the court, and Knicks didn't targey him, also wondered why then.

Forcing the offense to attack a perceived mismatch often backfires even in the modern NBA. Part of it is that it's entirely predictable, the defense knows EXACTLY what the offense is going to try and do and that's much easier to defend AND now the defense is actually dictating how the possession plays out rather than the offense. The best example of this is when there is a smaller defender switched onto a bigger player in the post. You see it all the time now, the offense will try and force feed to perceived mismatch and the defense just forced the offense to go to a post up as their offensive action which is often already a win on it's own. Factor in that often the times the smaller defender who is being posted up can just get lower than the offensive player and is unable to be moved and the "mismatch" results in a turnaround jumper or contested shot going away from the basket.

I disagree. There is handful of really good shooters the past several years who have been struggling to play decent minutes because of their bad defense.
Seth Curry has career ave of 43% from 3, actually lead the league last season but only played 15 mins/game last year.
Kennard has career ave of 44% but has only ave 22 mins/game
Hauser also has been consistently hitting above 40% from 3 but only played 21 mins/game
and all 3 guys are not turnover machines so the only explanation for me on why they didn't play more is that they are bad defenders.

[Warspite]

What if they did try it? The ref calls a moving screen 25-30% of the time and the Bucks go down the court and score enough points to win the game.

The reason teams play differently is because the rules are different. I know you think coaches are just so smarter today but no the refs just changed the game by being so much more lax on screens.

[picc]

Recently. Lots of interesting things in the game, but notably Ray Allen got injured late with a knee sprain and had to leave the game and hit the locker room for a while. Of course he came back in the game because its game 7. And when he did, he was limping so bad he could barely make it upcourt.

Milwaukee had Ray guarding Eric Snow, and everyone else available on Iverson. Naturally, I was expecting Philly take advantage of Ray's injury and have AI get him on switches or crossmatching for an easy iso or a forced double. Or for Snow to go at him.

Never happened. They didn't make the slightest attempt to bring Ray in on the action. Just let him exist on the other side of the court with a busted knee and Eric Snow 6 feet away. Didn't have Snow go at him. Didn't have Snow bring him into Iverson's screen action. Didn't try to force a switch. Didn't seek him in transition. Nothing. Meanwhile, Iverson just went at whatever defender George Karl assigned to him while Ray chilled on the weak side.

As surprising as this was, it did remind me that switch/bum hunting didn't really take off until the Warriors/Cavs finals. And that offensive strategy and coaching have gotten a lot better over the past 20 years. While we can blame them for not innovating earlier, it just wasn't the paradigm at the time.

Which makes me wonder if and how the NBA historic landscape would be different if this strategy had existed earlier.

But thats the question. Would NBA history be different if teams had been relentlessly hunting weak links on defense they way they do now, but in the 80s? The 90s? 00s?

Great observation bud!

It's funny because back then there became this prevalent strategy (that brought some criticism) that star players of the same position would no longer guard each other until the 4th quarter (to avoid foul trouble or expending energy). i.e. if it's Orl vs Tor, then TMac and Vince may only sparingly guard each other for the first 3 quarters.

But now we're at a point where we don't expect, say, Luka and Shai to guard each other. We know Dort will be on Luka, Vanderbuilt will be on Shai, and that both stars will instinctively scan the floor for the weakest defender to force a switch if or when it's time for them to go on the offensive.

But, to your question... a team like the 90s Bulls ran an offense that was the precursor to the Curry Warriors, so they wouldn't necessary have a need for it. However, early/pre-triangle Jordan probably would've had more seasons like the 33/8/8 year he had but the team success likely wouldn't have changed.

A team like the 80s Lakers, in which their half court offense was dump the ball into Kareem and react off the defense, they wouldn't necessarily have a need for it either. Like, if Worthy had a smaller defender switched on to him, he'd probably just try to reposition in the post anyway and it'd be a similar dynamic as how they play inside out. However, defensively, it could get interesting if shifty guards like Isiah made an emphasis to get Kareem on an island. However, like the other post said, with the lack of prevalent 3 point shooting... at best it'd result in more semi open 15 foot jumpers (semi bc defenses can recover that ground quicker than if it were a 25 foot 3).

If anything, it may expedite the evolution and necessity of the 3 ball. Maybe. That illegal defense existed and teams couldn't probably crowd/zone up on players like that is another element that we'd have to factor.

Awesome reply with some insightful thoughts. Thanks for answering the thread question and not focusing on ancillaries. This is exactly the kind of response I was looking for.

[picc]

When I think mismatch players, I always think of Lamar Odom. He would've been so good in today's game.

I actually think Lamar was exactly as good as he ever would have been. The Lakers used him as an early stretch 4 prototype in a league when he could have easily played the 3. Let him handle the ball. Let him shoot threes. I can't think of a single thing he could do today that we didn't allow him to do then.

[picc]

During Heat/Knicks PO series few years ago, Butler rolled his ankle but stayed on the court, and Knicks didn't targey him, also wondered why then.

Forcing the offense to attack a perceived mismatch often backfires even in the modern NBA. Part of it is that it's entirely predictable, the defense knows EXACTLY what the offense is going to try and do and that's much easier to defend AND now the defense is actually dictating how the possession plays out rather than the offense. The best example of this is when there is a smaller defender switched onto a bigger player in the post. You see it all the time now, the offense will try and force feed to perceived mismatch and the defense just forced the offense to go to a post up as their offensive action which is often already a win on it's own. Factor in that often the times the smaller defender who is being posted up can just get lower than the offensive player and is unable to be moved and the "mismatch" results in a turnaround jumper or contested shot going away from the basket.

I disagree. There is handful of really good shooters the past several years who have been struggling to play decent minutes because of their bad defense.
Seth Curry has career ave of 43% from 3, actually lead the league last season but only played 15 mins/game last year.
Kennard has career ave of 44% but has only ave 22 mins/game
Hauser also has been consistently hitting above 40% from 3 but only played 21 mins/game
and all 3 guys are not turnover machines so the only explanation for me on why they didn't play more is that they are bad defenders.

Yeah. That logic would lead to the conclusion its actually beneficial to have crippled or bad defenders on the court, because of some jedi mind trick it plays on the offense. That's obviously ridic.

[picc]

What if they did try it? The ref calls a moving screen 25-30% of the time and the Bucks go down the court and score enough points to win the game.

The reason teams play differently is because the rules are different. I know you think coaches are just so smarter today but no the refs just changed the game by being so much more lax on screens.

One hell of an assumption but I'm willing to entertain any thought in a thought experiment.

[mattg]

Forcing the offense to attack a perceived mismatch often backfires even in the modern NBA. Part of it is that it's entirely predictable, the defense knows EXACTLY what the offense is going to try and do and that's much easier to defend AND now the defense is actually dictating how the possession plays out rather than the offense. The best example of this is when there is a smaller defender switched onto a bigger player in the post. You see it all the time now, the offense will try and force feed to perceived mismatch and the defense just forced the offense to go to a post up as their offensive action which is often already a win on it's own. Factor in that often the times the smaller defender who is being posted up can just get lower than the offensive player and is unable to be moved and the "mismatch" results in a turnaround jumper or contested shot going away from the basket.

I disagree. There is handful of really good shooters the past several years who have been struggling to play decent minutes because of their bad defense.
Seth Curry has career ave of 43% from 3, actually lead the league last season but only played 15 mins/game last year.
Kennard has career ave of 44% but has only ave 22 mins/game
Hauser also has been consistently hitting above 40% from 3 but only played 21 mins/game
and all 3 guys are not turnover machines so the only explanation for me on why they didn't play more is that they are bad defenders.

Yeah. That logic would lead to the conclusion its actually beneficial to have crippled or bad defenders on the court, because of some jedi mind trick it plays on the offense. That's obviously ridic.

That's not what I'm saying at all and you're making a really stupid leap in logic there. There is a MASSIVE difference between attacking a perceived defensive mismatch vs then talking about intentionally having bad defenders on the court, that's beyond a false equivalency. Specifically in the example I mentioned we're talking about baiting the offense into going to an offensive action that has a much lower expected PPP vs alternatives. You're also not factoring in things like how much clock is wasted just attempting to initiate the offense towards the mismatch when the defense is expecting it as well.

As far as the dude who quoted me, it feels like a misquote because he literally didn't address any specific aspect of the post and is talking about bad defending shooters which is just random as heck and irrelevant here. Not sure how posters end up talking about bad defenders when we are talking about force feeding mismatches in a cross match situation.

[pwayknicks]

I remember a broken jimmy butler on Miami playing off ball defense late 4th quarter of a playoff game, on the Knicks and thibs made zero adjustment to have the man he was guarding get in action. Yes bum hunting is more now , but moronic coaching has always existed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SelfishPlayer]

This is why Allen Iverson would average 40ppg+ in this era. He would cook every 4 and 5 all night long. That wasn't a focus back then. Iverson during his era scorched guys that were qualified to guard him.

[tsherkin]

This is why Allen Iverson would average 40ppg+ in this era. He would cook every 4 and 5 all night long. That wasn't a focus back then. Iverson during his era scorched guys that were qualified to guard him.

There's no way he would average 40.

He was never particularly efficient in hyper volume, and flatly wasn't a good enough shooter to do it in volume in this era.

He'd enjoy the tempo. He'd enjoy mismatch hunting, but he'd still have all the many weaknesses he had as a small guy in his own time. Dude was like 5'11 and wasn't a good 3pt shooter. So unless you wanted him taking 24+ FGA/g (which he needed at the time to get into the 30s), I don't really see it happening. Obviously, he wouldn't be rocking a TS% in the 40s like he did in several seasons in his actual history, but he was pretty solidly a guy who hung out at near league average efficiency.

No sane team would let him shoot enough to approach 40. And a LOT of his scoring volume was from raw MPG. And it's been a long time since anyone played 38+ mpg, let alone 40+.

We've seen fast guys in the league. We have many now. And AI was a wild athlete, but there are still limitations based on size and shooting proficiency.

[tamaraw08]

I disagree. There is handful of really good shooters the past several years who have been struggling to play decent minutes because of their bad defense.
Seth Curry has career ave of 43% from 3, actually lead the league last season but only played 15 mins/game last year.
Kennard has career ave of 44% but has only ave 22 mins/game
Hauser also has been consistently hitting above 40% from 3 but only played 21 mins/game
and all 3 guys are not turnover machines so the only explanation for me on why they didn't play more is that they are bad defenders.

Yeah. That logic would lead to the conclusion its actually beneficial to have crippled or bad defenders on the court, because of some jedi mind trick it plays on the offense. That's obviously ridic.

That's not what I'm saying at all and you're making a really stupid leap in logic there. There is a MASSIVE difference between attacking a perceived defensive mismatch vs then talking about intentionally having bad defenders on the court, that's beyond a false equivalency. Specifically in the example I mentioned we're talking about baiting the offense into going to an offensive action that has a much lower expected PPP vs alternatives. You're also not factoring in things like how much clock is wasted just attempting to initiate the offense towards the mismatch when the defense is expecting it as well.

As far as the dude who quoted me, it feels like a misquote because he literally didn't address any specific aspect of the post and is talking about bad defending shooters which is just random as heck and irrelevant here. Not sure how posters end up talking about bad defenders when we are talking about force feeding mismatches in a cross match situation.

Wow, if you choose to disagree with my point about there's a correlation about bad defenders playing limited minutes because they are being targeted on defense then so be it.
3pt shooting is one of the biggest weapons on offense and it just doesn't makes sense to me that 3pt shooters would sit more than half of the game if they are not targeted on defense... unless of course that these 3pt shooters are also turnover machines... but it was not the case.
Coaches almost always find AND EXPLOIT the opposing team's weaknesses including hacking bad FT shooters like Mitchell Robinson, Shaq etc.
And it just makes perfect sense to me that they need to punish these bad defenders for staying on the court because if they don't, then these guys will just burn them on offense with a barrage of 3 pointers.

[SelfishPlayer]

This is why Allen Iverson would average 40ppg+ in this era. He would cook every 4 and 5 all night long. That wasn't a focus back then. Iverson during his era scorched guys that were qualified to guard him.

There's no way he would average 40.

He was never particularly efficient in hyper volume, and flatly wasn't a good enough shooter to do it in volume in this era.

He'd enjoy the tempo. He'd enjoy mismatch hunting, but he'd still have all the many weaknesses he had as a small guy in his own time. Dude was like 5'11 and wasn't a good 3pt shooter. So unless you wanted him taking 24+ FGA/g (which he needed at the time to get into the 30s), I don't really see it happening. Obviously, he wouldn't be rocking a TS% in the 40s like he did in several seasons in his actual history, but he was pretty solidly a guy who hung out at near league average efficiency.

No sane team would let him shoot enough to approach 40. And a LOT of his scoring volume was from raw MPG. And it's been a long time since anyone played 38+ mpg, let alone 40+.

We've seen fast guys in the league. We have many now. And AI was a wild athlete, but there are still limitations based on size and shooting proficiency.

You never mentioned Iverson's ability to get to the free throw line. Iverson in this era wouldn't have to try to score over teams that have legit shot blocking big men and backups. The defensive three second call aids Iverson. Iverson also didnt benefit greatly from the high pick and roll haleocentric offense that exists today.

Players today are so reliant upon using the pick and roll/screen roll that people have lost touch with how dominant superfast isolation players like Iverson can be not needing an offensive system to make him an elite scorer. The paint in this era is wide open! Players in this era need a pick or screen in order to get there. Iverson never does!

As for Iverson's efficiency, it only INCREASES with a league devoid of shot blocking.

[tsherkin]

You never mentioned Iverson's ability to get to the free throw line.

I don't really need to. We saw what that would look like for about half a decade. He was elite at it, but it still wouldn't have made up the difference with his various issues. He might be more sensibly deployed rocking high-volume passing, though.


Players today are so reliant upon using the pick and roll/screen roll that people have lost touch with how dominant superfast isolation players like Iverson can be not needing an offensive system to make him an elite scorer. The paint in this era is wide open! Players in this era need a pick or screen in order to get there. Iverson never does!

As for Iverson's efficiency, it only INCREASES with a league devoid of shot blocking.

Yes, in the absolute sense. Like everyone else. Just not in the relative sense.

[LeBronSpaghetti]

A thread assuming they could guard Iverson just say u wasn’t there

Iverson shot 34% from the field in that series. But I know, someone in this thread will tell me it’s not his fault. It’s because of the era he was in. It’s because of his teammates. Back then they used to force guys to mindlessly chuck bricks at gunpoint! He had no choice! There were no efficient scorers pre 2010!

[tsherkin]

I screwed up the quote in my previous post and missed this part:

Players today are so reliant upon using the pick and roll/screen roll that people have lost touch with how dominant superfast isolation players like Iverson can be not needing an offensive system to make him an elite scorer. The paint in this era is wide open! Players in this era need a pick or screen in order to get there. Iverson never does!

AI wasn't dominant, though. That was largely a function of PPG fetishism. Yeah, he was very fast and had an illegal handle that the league elected not to call, which enabled him in a way very similar to modern guys (for whom he paved the way). But he had was a volume practitioner of the least-efficient shots in basketball and not a good 3pt shooter. And even in today's game with the extra space, even factoring that in with the rise in FG% around the rim, his relative efficiency wouldn't be high enough to merit the kind of usage he had back then. Even if he got to the paint 28-30% of the time the way he did in his own time, it wouldn't be enough to offset his other issues relative to the league environment.

And no, players today don't "need" a pick or a screen in order to get there, it's just easier. MUCH easier, so why would you flail in a conventional iso? And even then, there are plenty of guys who isolate without screens in today's game, so it's not even a particularly accurate assessment of the game.