Myth About Small Ball Taking Over

[jayu70]

Remember when Spurs went small against OKC with Diaw playing Center. It's all about matchups.

[Little Digger]

Last time a team went BIG at the 4-5 positions the majority of the playoff games and won the championship?

[BBallFreak]

Do we really consider David Lee "big" in that sense?

You do realize he averaged 18.2 points and 9.3 boards just a year ago, right? I'd say that was pretty big.

lol, I'm not talking about statistical production. I mean defensively, do we consider Lee a guy that has a big presence on defense. I know he can score and rebound, but in the Warriors case, going from Lee to Draymond is smaller in the sense of inside play on offense, but you are essentially playing "bigger" on defense with Green.

If your small ball can defend, then the smallness of it is essentially negated. Teams that have gone small and had issues generally didn't have small lineups that could defend well. They generally traded offense for defense when going small.

Now you're starting an entirely different argument. Lol. Any player who sees the floor, especially a guy putting in starters minutes, should be able to make some sort of positive impact. That goes without saying. Defining what constitutes a positive impact can depend on the system, advanced metrics, team needs, and/or the roles of guys around you. Obviously Golden State, like Miami before them, found more value in their small players than they did in their big players.

I would actually think that given the right center, and in the right system, Lee could be quite useful as a starting per forward. Put him with some solid defenders, make his offensive game a focal point (2nd or 3rd option) and I could see him being a strong contributor in a winning situation.

[xfactor99]

14-15: Warriors went small by benching Bogut for Iguodala to win the series.
13-14: Spurs went small by benching Splitter for Diaw to win the series.
12-13: Both teams went small (Spurs benched Splitter for Ginobili, Heat benched Haslem for Miller) to win the series.
11-12: Heat went small by starting Chris Bosh for Haslem instead of Shane Battier when Bosh returned for Game 2. Of note Brooks never benched Kendrick Perkins, when it became obvious he should do so.
10-11: Mavericks went small by benching Barea for Stevenson.

Bottom line it's become clear that the way to win in the finals is to go small and get big man stiffs out of there while still maintaining a great defense. The burden of proof is on teams that play with two orthodox bigs to prove that they are still the best formula for winning an NBA Championship.

[TaylorMonkey]

I think injuries defeated the Grizzlies more so than small ball.

Not really. Conley was about 80% or better. Allen was rendered unplayable even before he pulled his hamstring. Some of us wanted Allen to be healthy because he was a known factor that was solved.

That said, the Warriors used their small ball judiciously and their bigs defended memphis' s front court well. I'd agree that their lack of shooting did them in, and no one injured on Memphis was that shooter they needed.

Conley was 65% at best, playing with a broken face, bum ankles, and a list of other injuries not including the weight and conditioning he lost from not playing. Allen aggregated his hamstring game 4 and played 15 mins, DNP game 5 and tried to go Game 6 but only managed 5 mins. Like I said injuries did the Grizzlies in more so than the small ball, their small ball just took advantage of the situation. Allen isn't a shooter but im not sure you can quantify the amount of pts he can take off their boards with stats alone. Im posting a link to a interview mike did to help you better understand what he had to deal with.

http://m.espn.go.com/general/play?id=13082870

Allen was completely unplayable even when healthy. The Bogut on Allen switch killed the Grizzlies already questionable offense and they had to reduce his minutes even before he was injured.

Conley put on weight just missing a few... what was it-- weeks? He looked fine in his game back.

Grizzlies would have been much better if they could rotate Allen with a capable shooter, injured or not. Basically GSW game Grizzlies and Allen the Spurs treatment, who swept them 4-0.

[nationwidekid]

Not really. Conley was about 80% or better. Allen was rendered unplayable even before he pulled his hamstring. Some of us wanted Allen to be healthy because he was a known factor that was solved.

That said, the Warriors used their small ball judiciously and their bigs defended memphis' s front court well. I'd agree that their lack of shooting did them in, and no one injured on Memphis was that shooter they needed.

Conley was 65% at best, playing with a broken face, bum ankles, and a list of other injuries not including the weight and conditioning he lost from not playing. Allen aggregated his hamstring game 4 and played 15 mins, DNP game 5 and tried to go Game 6 but only managed 5 mins. Like I said injuries did the Grizzlies in more so than the small ball, their small ball just took advantage of the situation. Allen isn't a shooter but im not sure you can quantify the amount of pts he can take off their boards with stats alone. Im posting a link to a interview mike did to help you better understand what he had to deal with.

http://m.espn.go.com/general/play?id=13082870

Allen was completely unplayable even when healthy. The Bogut on Allen switch killed the Grizzlies already questionable offense and they had to reduce his minutes even before he was injured.

Conley put on weight just missing a few... what was it-- weeks? He looked fine in his game back.

Grizzlies would have been much better if they could rotate Allen with a capable shooter, injured or not. Basically GSW game Grizzlies and Allen the Spurs treatment, who swept them 4-0.

I think GSW would have won if we were healthy, but maybe we take them to 7 and who knows what happens at that point. The Bogut on TA move was great, Barnes on ZBO was great and we couldn't counter any of those moves. Conley actually lost weight as he stated on the link I posted but again i think the Warriors win if we were healthy but i would have loved to see how it played out with our full roster.

[EvanZ]

The 3pt shot is taking over. Small players tend to be better at shooting and defending it. So yeah.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[SK21209]

14-15: Warriors went small by benching Bogut for Iguodala to win the series.
13-14: Spurs went small by benching Splitter for Diaw to win the series.
12-13: Both teams went small (Spurs benched Splitter for Ginobili, Heat benched Haslem for Miller) to win the series.
11-12: Heat went small by starting Chris Bosh for Haslem instead of Shane Battier when Bosh returned for Game 2. Of note Brooks never benched Kendrick Perkins, when it became obvious he should do so.
10-11: Mavericks went small by benching Barea for Stevenson.

Bottom line it's become clear that the way to win in the finals is to go small and get big man stiffs out of there while still maintaining a great defense. The burden of proof is on teams that play with two orthodox bigs to prove that they are still the best formula for winning an NBA Championship.

Generally agree, but Splitter was arguably the Spurs most valuable player in 2014 in the first two rounds against Dallas and Portland. And his increased minutes have been as big a reason as any for their renaissance the last few years. Similar case with Bogut this year, without whom there's no way the Warriors win 67. The Finals is just one series of 4 a team needs to win, and sometimes its not even the two best teams (the last two years). I think its just general versatility that is becoming more and more important, a team could still win it all predominantly playing two bigs

[murphadam420]

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.

Ah yes the Cavs would have really done well with the speed demons Kevin Love and Anderson Varejao getting back in transition to stop the Dubs. Those two are also know for their excellent pick and roll defense, surely Steph Curry, Klay Thompson, Draymond Green, Harrison Barnes and Andre Igoudala would never get open threes, much less open looks at the rim with those two excellent rim protectors.

[fortinbras]

Last time a team went BIG at the 4-5 positions the majority of the playoff games and won the championship?

2010 Lakers ??

[kodo]

Last time a team went BIG at the 4-5 positions the majority of the playoff games and won the championship?

2010 Lakers ??

2011 Mavs, 7' Dirk + 7' Chandler is as big as you get.

It's less about small vs big and more about floor spacing, because Dirk still spaces the floor because he's a shooting big man.

[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.

Ah yes the Cavs would have really done well with the speed demons Kevin Love and Anderson Varejao getting back in transition to stop the Dubs. Those two are also know for their excellent pick and roll defense, surely Steph Curry, Klay Thompson, Draymond Green, Harrison Barnes and Andre Igoudala would never get open threes, much less open looks at the rim with those two excellent rim protectors.

problem was that they couldn't run with the warriors when they went small because of small rotation leading to tired players. Cavs would have scored more when warriors went small if they had kyrie and love.
Do people forget what cavs were working with? They had no ball handler other than lebron. Like not even an average ball handler.
This isn't the 90s. A stretch 4 like love is very important in today's league. Other team will just ignore guys like TT and mozgov outside the paint leading to easy paint guarding.

[murphadam420]

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.

Ah yes the Cavs would have really done well with the speed demons Kevin Love and Anderson Varejao getting back in transition to stop the Dubs. Those two are also know for their excellent pick and roll defense, surely Steph Curry, Klay Thompson, Draymond Green, Harrison Barnes and Andre Igoudala would never get open threes, much less open looks at the rim with those two excellent rim protectors.

problem was that they couldn't run with the warriors when they went small because of small rotation leading to tired players. Cavs would have scored more when warriors went small if they had kyrie and love.
Do people forget what cavs were working with? They had no ball handler other than lebron. Like not even an average ball handler.
This isn't the 90s. A stretch 4 like love is very important in today's league. Other team will just ignore guys like TT and mozgov outside the paint leading to easy paint guarding.

Every point the Cavs would have scored would be given right back. The Warriors small ball lineup is still very good defensively with athletic plus defenders at four positions including a great defender at the most important, center. The same can't be said for Cleveland. KLove at center vs the Warriors would have the Dubs licking their chops. Love is a great offensive player, but Mozgod was dominant on offense in the finals and Blatt had to take him out because he he couldn't contest threes and was too slow to get back to protect the rim. Same issues would plague Love. Love's shooting would definitely have helped in a half court situation though, your right about that, he just wouldn't have been a huge help at center in a small ball lineup.

[MrTwister]

14-15: Warriors went small by benching Bogut for Iguodala to win the series.
13-14: Spurs went small by benching Splitter for Diaw to win the series.
12-13: Both teams went small (Spurs benched Splitter for Ginobili, Heat benched Haslem for Miller) to win the series.
11-12: Heat went small by starting Chris Bosh for Haslem instead of Shane Battier when Bosh returned for Game 2. Of note Brooks never benched Kendrick Perkins, when it became obvious he should do so.
10-11: Mavericks went small by benching Barea for Stevenson.

Bottom line it's become clear that the way to win in the finals is to go small and get big man stiffs out of there while still maintaining a great defense. The burden of proof is on teams that play with two orthodox bigs to prove that they are still the best formula for winning an NBA Championship.

How can you go smaller than Barea?

[WarriorsEFC]

The argument is that small ball isn't taking over because hypothetical Shaq would own the matchup against Draymond Green?

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Don't give away the secret. Sooner or later they will figure out that for all the "small ball" Golden State play... when we come up against a big dominant team... Andrew Bogut or Festus Ezeli is out there protecting the rim and not allowing the bigs to score.

Now unless the next hypothetical Shaq plays 48 minutes per game... there are about 8-10 minutes a game when we go small on small against sides and tended to blow them out...and surprise surprise usually that is in the 3rd quarter and beginning of the last!

It's hilarious for me that people are taking a sample size of basically 3 games in the finals when we had a lineup that was small for the entire game... and just assuming that was how it went for the entire season with Draymond at Center.

[Snotbubbles]

14-15: Warriors went small by benching Bogut for Iguodala to win the series.
13-14: Spurs went small by benching Splitter for Diaw to win the series.
12-13: Both teams went small (Spurs benched Splitter for Ginobili, Heat benched Haslem for Miller) to win the series.
11-12: Heat went small by starting Chris Bosh for Haslem instead of Shane Battier when Bosh returned for Game 2. Of note Brooks never benched Kendrick Perkins, when it became obvious he should do so.
10-11: Mavericks went small by benching Barea for Stevenson.

Bottom line it's become clear that the way to win in the finals is to go small and get big man stiffs out of there while still maintaining a great defense. The burden of proof is on teams that play with two orthodox bigs to prove that they are still the best formula for winning an NBA Championship.

Of all those teams, did any have a dominant big man that could expose the teams going small? Mozgov, Splitter, Haslem. Meh. Those guys probably should have gotten benched because, well, they suck.

[xfactor99]

How can you go smaller than Barea?

Whoops..they benched Stevenson for Barea. Got who got benched for who mixed up. My bad.

Of all those teams, did any have a dominant big man that could expose the teams going small? Mozgov, Splitter, Haslem. Meh. Those guys probably should have gotten benched because, well, they suck.

Looks like no teams with a dominant big man have made the finals in the last 5 years then, unless you count Duncan. And that when you're there, tthe way to win is to downsize and play with four or more 3-point shooters on the court.

[immortalone23]

14-15: Warriors went small by benching Bogut for Iguodala to win the series.
13-14: Spurs went small by benching Splitter for Diaw to win the series.
12-13: Both teams went small (Spurs benched Splitter for Ginobili, Heat benched Haslem for Miller) to win the series.
11-12: Heat went small by starting Chris Bosh for Haslem instead of Shane Battier when Bosh returned for Game 2. Of note Brooks never benched Kendrick Perkins, when it became obvious he should do so.
10-11: Mavericks went small by benching Barea for Stevenson.

Bottom line it's become clear that the way to win in the finals is to go small and get big man stiffs out of there while still maintaining a great defense. The burden of proof is on teams that play with two orthodox bigs to prove that they are still the best formula for winning an NBA Championship.

How can you go smaller than Barea?

Earl Boykins

[young_frogger]

All this 'small vs big' talk is full of generalizations and a seemingly infinite number of variables. People are just naming examples left and right of times small ball had success vs times dominant big men had success. It all just depends on talent and who out-plays who during their playoff matchups at the end of the day.

If we're going to narrow the scope of basketball discussion to 'big vs small' then I'm proposing the new formula for success that all nba teams should follow: medium ball.

Medium ball incorporates the talent of dominant big men like Shaq and super talented littles like curry. This gives teams unlimited flexibility, the option to out-run big teams and post-up the little ones, creating perfect basketball harmony.