Reimagining NBA Positions

[moofs]

http://www.thedreamshake.com/2010/8/5/1 ... -they-mean

Discuss.

[Meatcookie]

why don't you offer up an opinion instead of "discuss"

Or just join the discussion on the dream shake?

[Guy986]

why don't you offer up an opinion instead of "discuss"

Or just join the discussion on the dream shake?

Moofs want to hear others opinion before he drops his. Ain't nothing wrong with the simple old school "discuss".

[Optimism Prime]

I like it. Let's get a Myers-Briggs Type Indicator set up for basketball positions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Brig ... _Indicator
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBTI_Step_II

There's a Type I and a Type II. Type I sorts people into one of sixteen categories based on where they fall on the axes (extraversion/introversion), (sensing/intuition), (thinking/feeling), (judgment/perception). Type II breaks those categories down further and identifies you by your 'out-of-type' traits, such as "reflective extrovert" (yours truly).

I don't have the time or mental energy to get into it further, but you guys take it from here...

What are the four categories?

Creating-Receiving
Offensive-Defensive
Uptempo-Halfcourt
Distance-Close Range

Or something like that? Though we'd probably want to include "oversized" or "undersized" as well.

So Kidd, for example, would be a "creating defensive uptempo distance shooter", or the like (at least nowadays). Yao is a "receiving offensive halfcourt close-range player." Odom would be a "creating offensive uptempo close-range" player. Type II traits would be "spot up shooter," "midrange game," and "absolutely wacky" respectively.

Just a thought.... You guys hammer out the details and we'll post our collective brilliance on the General board.

[rocketsballin]

jared jeffries - useless versatility
rafer alston - brick specialist
daryl morey - jedi knight
sammy d - big black guy

[spolgar]

A couple of things. I think this saying by Mutumbo stands now, actually larger than ever:

"In this league. You have to be good at everything. But in order to keep a job, you have to be _really_ good at one thing."

Secondly most players have easily quantifiable specialties, and the categorization of said specialties can be extremely acute and remain useful. Classification by this manner need not be mutually exclusive in any way. Definitions don't even need to be fuzzy or encompassing.

What it really comes down to for me is, where does the guy participate on the offense if that's his thing, and who/how does he guard on the defense if he is at all noteworthy on that end of the floor. When I look at a basketball player, I try to think of the utility the player brings to the team. Height, weight, foot speed, strength etc are just tools that people employ to define their niche.

I think the old positioning system still works, if not by what he does, then by the type of player that tends to guard him. In that way you build a set of folks that in any given game are designated to guard one another. Those players generally have similar characteristics, for examples players with height that like to score down low, the only way to defend those players properly is to have similar tools to counter the physical advantages that the scorer has.

Over time, the spectators of the game build up this common sense/prejudice thing where they start lumping folks into a position based on these external qualities. Which once we get past the American notion that prejudice is bad, we find that the folks that coach/manage/play the game to want to lump players into these molds as well. Since those particular scoring and defensive roles have been defined by predecessors, that those with the necessary physical tools, even if what they originally brought to the table did not happen to mesh well with the stereotype's skillsets, pick up those skills, learn those moves, and play to new rules because the money is good enough for them to change.

We need not go very far from what we have in our vocabulary today. Our bigs are generally (when I mean generally, I mean not Tim Duncan), known as either scoring or defensive bigs. Our bigs generally prefer to score face up or post up. There are very few who can do both competently and not be in the Hall of Fame (Roy Tarpley comes to mind). Our wings either slash or shoot or defend (not xor). Our guards play on the ball or off. Our points either score first or pass first. There need not be something complex. Defensively, if you are a man to man defender, a passing lane defender, a post defender, or part of a funneling system that directs the offensive ball handler to a particular spot on the court, you are taking away options from the offensive player. What options you take away classify you as that type of defensive player.

So I'm gonna be contrary voice here and caution going full bore unto inventing something new, when what we have is useful to communicate our ideas about basketball already.

[moofs]

why don't you offer up an opinion instead of "discuss"

Or just join the discussion on the dream shake?

Moofs want to hear others opinion before he drops his. Ain't nothing wrong with the simple old school "discuss".

That and I've been trying to reduce my posting at work. Typing out a several-page-long argument takes a while.

[spolgar]

Do it anyway. It's monday for crying out loud

[TMU]

Do it anyway. It's monday for crying out loud

I know you're not going to respond to my post, but congrats on your first really really really short post.

[spolgar]

Yes I am. Shorter still.