Myth About Small Ball Taking Over

[Cappy_Smurf]

Small ball ismfor teams without bigmen. You play to your strength.

Golden State has big men though. Bogut and David Lee are both quality guys. Then Speights, too? They could have gone bigger. They just chose to play their best guys. It worked.

Depends on matchups. Can't just play small ball against everyone.

[76ciology]

That's the thing; Miami turned the league toward small ball, taking advantage of the fact that their were no generational big men to compete against...just good big men...so, you force them off the court and make teams match up to your strengths. Miami boasted Wade, Battier Allen, and LeBron. Small ball was obvious. No one could really match that, until San Antonio did. Same for Golden State. You've got Green, Iggy, Curry, and Klay. No one has been able to match that. You build to your strengths. Someday soon, another big will come along that's just too good for small ball, and teams will adapt again. They'll find size to compete. It's cyclical.

It's like the run and shoot offense or the wildcat offense in pro football. It catches the opponents off guard and they can't figure out how to respond instantly. That's all. Bigs will be back. Already, Miami has changed it's approach back to the more traditional with far more familiar roles for their big men. The tide will change again. It's just a matter of who's going to come along and force the change...

This. It's basically an arms race between the best team in the league and the rest.

Remember when Magic and D12 was dominant and was the top team in the east (they went to the finals), every team in the east tried to have a good post defender. It was the time when Kendrick Perkins was valuable.

Same when Shaq was a monster where you can see every roster having to overpay their own Jim Mcilvaine to match-up against him.

Now that LBJ and KD are beastin', 3 and D swingman are in demand.

Sooner or later, teams will find ways to counter GSW. Maybe opting to hurt them down low with TD-LMA is a good bet. Where you can have your big go outside and defend, knowing you have another big that can protect the paint. Then on the offensive end, you can abuse the smaller defender with one of your bigs being match-up with a smaller defender. Grizz were somehow successful to do this, except that they really lack help/spacing from their bench and perimeter offense.

[killacalijatt]

Grizz tried hurting us with Gasol/Zbo.

Dnt even make me pull up Gasols stat line

[killacalijatt]

GSW do a great job of collapsing in the paint. Grizzlies lack of an outside presence killed them.

[floppymoose]

Someday soon, another big will come along that's just too good for small ball, and teams will adapt again. They'll find size to compete. It's cyclical.

It's not cyclical. We may see dominant big men again someday, but it won't be because it's cyclical. NBA athletes are quicker and can shoot more accurately, quickly, and from longer range than they could 20 years ago. 60% of the shots are contested by 40% of the players (PF's and C's) and that dichotomy is being reflected in team makeup: mobile defense-oriented bigs are more in demand than they once were, and the guards are expected to carry a heavy offensive workload and to be able to shoot from range.

Any dominant big we see from hear on out is going to have be able to compete on such a team, and against such teams, successfully. Because the mobile defenders are here to stay, as are the shooters.

[John Long]

Well brace yourself for that sixer dynasty in 2315 bringing big ball back on the map one center at a time. No wonder Hinkie still has a job, you guys are drunk off his kool-aid

[nationwidekid]

Small ball ismfor teams without bigmen. You play to your strength.

Golden State has big men though. Bogut and David Lee are both quality guys. Then Speights, too? They could have gone bigger. They just chose to play their best guys. It worked.

Their big men isn't better than their small ball line up. Speights and Bogut played for them though and Lee lost his spot after he was injured. Also neither Bogut nor Speights are guys you can go to in the post to get you buckets.

[inquisitive]

u need a big man who can score down low in the post and run the floor...as well as a 3pt shooting threat....hmmm...DMO!

[AQuintus]

It's not cyclical. We may see dominant big men again someday, but it won't be because it's cyclical.

This. The end of the big man era came about due to rule changes (specifically the ban on hand checking and the allowance of zone D). Any resurgence in big man play will also have to come about due to rule changes.

[WangZhiZhiRules]

The percentage of total shots that are 3's keeps going up, which shows that small ball or at least perimeter oriented offense is taking over and becoming a focus of teams.

Working backwards, this is the percentage shots that were 3's. Keep in mind this is a league average.

14-15: 26.8%
13-14: 25.9%
12-13: 24.3%
11-12: 22.5%
10-11: 22.1%
09-10: 22.1%
08-09: 22.4%
04-05: 19.6%
01-02: 18.1%
95-96: 20.0%
89-90: 7.6%

[C3H6N6O6]

Warriors small ball wouldn't have worked for longer stretches if cavs were healthy.
Having a very good post scorer who is a great passer is the best strategy in the current league. Scoring in the post might be down but it is the threat of scoring in the post which allows shooters to be open.

Stretch 4s are very important too. This is not the 90s where rules were easy given that the other team had to stay close to rodman like players even though he couldn't shoot. in current league, if a big can't shoot then he will allow the other team to just crowd the paint and make it impossible for the other team to get to the rim.

[12footrim]

I'm tired of hearing how the league is changing and small ball is taking over. Compete myth. Everyone wants to look at Golden St. Just stop. Golden St won because they have great talent. Curry is arguably the greatest shooter in NBA history. If Curry isn't on the team Golden St could go small ball all they wanted but they wouldn't win because Curry isn't on the team. You still need great talent. .

Wait so as long as you have great talent you can play small and win? Got it.

Don't think this helps your case though. Just shows more you don't need a dominate center or even a real center if you have good perimeter players and they are clearly driving the game today. The more skilled quicker players you can get on the court the better and small players just happen to usually be better outside shooters, passers and ball handlers and quicker.

[cbk41]

Small ball is becoming big because of a serious lack of quality post scorers. Big men are just not as skilled in the post as they used to be.

The interior is being more reserved for slashers and play makers versus camping skilled scorers. Might as well take that interior presence and camp a shooter instead. Shooters tend to be smaller. There's your small ball.

[spacemonkey]

Okay the first 3 replies in this thread are pure gold.

[Jakay]

GSW do a great job of collapsing in the paint. Grizzlies lack of an outside presence killed them.

Lack of small ball defeated by small ball. Oh sweet irony...

[yitur]

Don't worry bigman era is coming. Okafor-Embiid-Noel-Davis-Cousins-Drummond-Turner-Gobert, these guys have immense potential. Of course some will fail to reach their ceilings for various reasons but I'm still hopefull about all of them.

You forgot Jonas Valanciunas

I just realized I actually forgot Towns. Val and Len were left out intentionally.

[naabzor]

You go small when you don't have competent big man, that's it. Grizzlies are not going small ball sooner.

[BBallFreak]

Someday soon, another big will come along that's just too good for small ball, and teams will adapt again. They'll find size to compete. It's cyclical.

It's not cyclical. We may see dominant big men again someday, but it won't be because it's cyclical. NBA athletes are quicker and can shoot more accurately, quickly, and from longer range than they could 20 years ago. 60% of the shots are contested by 40% of the players (PF's and C's) and that dichotomy is being reflected in team makeup: mobile defense-oriented bigs are more in demand than they once were, and the guards are expected to carry a heavy offensive workload and to be able to shoot from range.

Any dominant big we see from hear on out is going to have be able to compete on such a team, and against such teams, successfully. Because the mobile defenders are here to stay, as are the shooters.

I cannot fully agree with you. If you think that a Shaquille O'Neal is going to be relegated to a role played because he's not as mobile a defender as a Chris Bosh, think again. No matter what the recent trends are, a great big is a great big. If the 90's centers (Shaq, Ewing Robinson, Olajawon, Mourning, Mutombo) were to be reincarnated into today's NBA, no one would poo poo any of them for not being mobile enough. They'd completely readjust the way they play the game to suit those guys. Talent wins out...

[stuporman]

It's not the size of the balls, it's the sag of the sack.

[BoutPractice]

I agree.

...Well, not with the last post, with the thread I mean.

Even the prototypical small ball team isn't actually small ball. Golden State fans seem to have forgotten the enormous debt they owe to Andrew Bogut... And I could've sworn a certain Tim Duncan was manning the paint for last year's Spurs.