Ian, would love more basketball and would pay for it. Big picture stuff like what wins in the playoffs, where the game is heading, where the individual players fit in the history of the game, etc. Would sign up in a heart beat for NBA analysis
I like this pursuit and theories behind it, especially as a tertiary interest within this Substack. These playoffs have been great.
Similar to LOS and WR matchups in football, it’s fun to watch and try to predict who’s relative strength will win-out in a hyper specific matchup. Would love to see Nuggets vs Wolves round 2
This may be getting too into the weeds of a game that is not "America's War Game", but I was thinking about this more as far as roster construction and X's and O's. One of the key basketball tenants on this site that is often used for football analogies (and one I agree with) is that teams should focus on taking (and therefore also preventing) 3s and layups. But the teams that do the best on those metrics are usually those with a classic tree of a rim protector and 4 smaller guys staying glued to their man on the perimeter. The type of defender you talk about here seems better served on Thibodeau's Knicks (not surprisingly), with his ability to check a drive and then close out to his man on the kickout, long arms extended. But that style does give up more 3s (albeit uncomfortable, well-contested 3s -- that's sort of the point of these guys). I guess my idea of the football equivalent would actually be a Belichick defense that forces you to pass but has built their team to match up to it (which speaks well of it, I suppose), but I would expect the "pinnacle" to evolve to some basketball equivalent of the dollar: something that forces you to beat us on the ground (inside the arc).
The "stick on your guys and have a tree on the backline" is something that works super well until it doesn't. When it doesn't work is when teams can drag the tree out to the perimeter and hunt him on screens and then no one else knows how to play without help.
See the Gobert era Jazz for like 4-5 years in a row.
In the playoffs a backline protector is nice but the more versatile defensive bigs who can move out on the perimeter are more valuable. So Draymond Green, Bam Adebayo, eventually Wembanyama, guys like that. Aaron Gordon too, throw him in there.
None of the remaining four teams really have that guy, although the Knicks have the pretty versatile Mitchell Robinson and can also go small with Anunoby there. That's pretty much it. The Wolves either go ultra-offense with Naz Reid or they have the ultimate tree, Gobert. The Thunder are close with Holmgren but he's not really there yet, imo. The Pacers have the 5-out sort of center in Myles Turner and then sometimes go Uber-offense like the Wolves with Obi Toppin in that spot.
Only quip with this - I’d push back on the throwaway Tatum comment. I don’t see how the Celtics become more versatile and adaptive by increasing Pritchard and Kornert’s minutes in place of Tatum.
He is a limited player in the super star / lead initiator category, since his archetype is the same as the Bridges and Anonoby’s of the world just at an 1st/2nd Team All-NBA level. The extra spot-up shooting between PP and LK is good to have, but I’m not sure that offsets the loss on defense and having to give more on ball responsibility to Jaylen Jrue and DW. The beauty of last years C’s, as you mentioned, is they had 4 perimeter players at the 2nd / 3rd level of offense initiator in a 5-out environment. I’m not sure losing one of those cogs in the machine is good for any of the remaining guys.
It is if one of them is prone to long bouts of ball-dominance in which there is no synergy across the team AND illness has robbed them of the 5-out dimension that covered some of their warts.
Tatum is prone to such things. His hero being Kobe Bryant is emblematic of everything that's wrong with how he plays basketball. It's about doing what he can to be an individual force as opposed to doing everything he can to ensure the team functions as a fist.
Both have titles and both were great, but each also needed a lot of help and sacrifice from teammates that often didn't get the credit they should have had. The latter was more true for Kobe, who blunted Pau Gasol's impact and legacy and stole all the glory when Pau was the power behind the throne in the second run.
I think your theory has a lot to recommend it … but I think if you look at who has the best decision making and overall quality of their point player it better explains who USUALLY wins. Last year’s Celtics were an exception but some of it is also chicken or the egg. Like, did MJ win because Michael was unstoppable on offense or because he and Scotty were the epitome of what you just talked about? Did Golden State win more because of Curry or the Draymond, Klay, Andre triumvirate on D? I think the best answer is your theory is a way to differentiate among teams that have an apex creator, but the second part is the prerequisite (and the reason I don’t see NY taking it, don’t think Brunson is quite on the LeBron, Steph, Joker level).
When the Warriors won it was always with outstanding perimeter defense in addition to Steph's all-time elite offensive playmaking (on or off the ball) which was further boosted by Draymond's ability to do some of the decision-making off screens or split action.
The Bulls absolutely won because Scottie gave him another elite perimeter stopper and decision-making. Michael's decision-making was notoriously deficient until Phil Jackson and Scottie finally got through to him. MJ passing off to Kerr for the game-winner stood out for a reason, haha.
I think the defensive angle is a prerequisite and then from there, best decision-maker/play making wins. The Celtics had an easier time making decisions and plays because they could spread teams with 5-out ball.
LeBron was generally the best playmaker and decision-maker in any given series but he lost a ton of Finals and playoff games because of perimeter defense.
I became a fan of the Warriors when they lost KD in the playoffs up 3-2 going into Houston for game 6 and they murdered the Rockets on their own floor, then swept the Trail Blazers without KD, and then I believe had actually solved Toronto and were going to win that series before Klay blew out his knee.
The beautiful game of Steph-Klay-Iggy-Draymond-another warm body was so aesthetically pleasing and they won with defense and toughness and IQ as much as scintillating shot-making. Steph's 4th title with Wiggins and a broken down Klay was really meaningful in this regard.
Tell you what though. First round Draymond still looked like Draymond but his offensive deficiencies were causing major issues and then Julius Randle took it to him. Tough look. He's an amazing partner for Steph, probably could have evolved to be a great partner for someone else, but Steph and his shot-making has always been the key in the bay to make the other stuff matter.
Ian, would love more basketball and would pay for it. Big picture stuff like what wins in the playoffs, where the game is heading, where the individual players fit in the history of the game, etc. Would sign up in a heart beat for NBA analysis
As a Knicks fan I think the ECF is going to come down to KAT either making a brilliant play or boneheaded one.
I was 11 the last time they made it this far, nothing lights up NYC like the Knicks making a deep playoff run.
Love the basketball stuff. Love the analogies and also love the straight basketball analysis.
I like this pursuit and theories behind it, especially as a tertiary interest within this Substack. These playoffs have been great.
Similar to LOS and WR matchups in football, it’s fun to watch and try to predict who’s relative strength will win-out in a hyper specific matchup. Would love to see Nuggets vs Wolves round 2
This may be getting too into the weeds of a game that is not "America's War Game", but I was thinking about this more as far as roster construction and X's and O's. One of the key basketball tenants on this site that is often used for football analogies (and one I agree with) is that teams should focus on taking (and therefore also preventing) 3s and layups. But the teams that do the best on those metrics are usually those with a classic tree of a rim protector and 4 smaller guys staying glued to their man on the perimeter. The type of defender you talk about here seems better served on Thibodeau's Knicks (not surprisingly), with his ability to check a drive and then close out to his man on the kickout, long arms extended. But that style does give up more 3s (albeit uncomfortable, well-contested 3s -- that's sort of the point of these guys). I guess my idea of the football equivalent would actually be a Belichick defense that forces you to pass but has built their team to match up to it (which speaks well of it, I suppose), but I would expect the "pinnacle" to evolve to some basketball equivalent of the dollar: something that forces you to beat us on the ground (inside the arc).
The "stick on your guys and have a tree on the backline" is something that works super well until it doesn't. When it doesn't work is when teams can drag the tree out to the perimeter and hunt him on screens and then no one else knows how to play without help.
See the Gobert era Jazz for like 4-5 years in a row.
In the playoffs a backline protector is nice but the more versatile defensive bigs who can move out on the perimeter are more valuable. So Draymond Green, Bam Adebayo, eventually Wembanyama, guys like that. Aaron Gordon too, throw him in there.
None of the remaining four teams really have that guy, although the Knicks have the pretty versatile Mitchell Robinson and can also go small with Anunoby there. That's pretty much it. The Wolves either go ultra-offense with Naz Reid or they have the ultimate tree, Gobert. The Thunder are close with Holmgren but he's not really there yet, imo. The Pacers have the 5-out sort of center in Myles Turner and then sometimes go Uber-offense like the Wolves with Obi Toppin in that spot.
Only quip with this - I’d push back on the throwaway Tatum comment. I don’t see how the Celtics become more versatile and adaptive by increasing Pritchard and Kornert’s minutes in place of Tatum.
He is a limited player in the super star / lead initiator category, since his archetype is the same as the Bridges and Anonoby’s of the world just at an 1st/2nd Team All-NBA level. The extra spot-up shooting between PP and LK is good to have, but I’m not sure that offsets the loss on defense and having to give more on ball responsibility to Jaylen Jrue and DW. The beauty of last years C’s, as you mentioned, is they had 4 perimeter players at the 2nd / 3rd level of offense initiator in a 5-out environment. I’m not sure losing one of those cogs in the machine is good for any of the remaining guys.
It is if one of them is prone to long bouts of ball-dominance in which there is no synergy across the team AND illness has robbed them of the 5-out dimension that covered some of their warts.
Tatum is prone to such things. His hero being Kobe Bryant is emblematic of everything that's wrong with how he plays basketball. It's about doing what he can to be an individual force as opposed to doing everything he can to ensure the team functions as a fist.
Both have titles and both were great, but each also needed a lot of help and sacrifice from teammates that often didn't get the credit they should have had. The latter was more true for Kobe, who blunted Pau Gasol's impact and legacy and stole all the glory when Pau was the power behind the throne in the second run.
Those limitations on JT are fair. Jaylen has largely the same as well.
So maybe going from 2 out of 4 ball handlers having blinders on to 1 out of 3 is a positive for the team.
Maybe a bit of Ewing Theory by getting more out of Jaylen and PP in a small sample. But I’d still push back on them being in a better spot.
I think your theory has a lot to recommend it … but I think if you look at who has the best decision making and overall quality of their point player it better explains who USUALLY wins. Last year’s Celtics were an exception but some of it is also chicken or the egg. Like, did MJ win because Michael was unstoppable on offense or because he and Scotty were the epitome of what you just talked about? Did Golden State win more because of Curry or the Draymond, Klay, Andre triumvirate on D? I think the best answer is your theory is a way to differentiate among teams that have an apex creator, but the second part is the prerequisite (and the reason I don’t see NY taking it, don’t think Brunson is quite on the LeBron, Steph, Joker level).
You need both, it's hard to disentangle them.
When the Warriors won it was always with outstanding perimeter defense in addition to Steph's all-time elite offensive playmaking (on or off the ball) which was further boosted by Draymond's ability to do some of the decision-making off screens or split action.
The Bulls absolutely won because Scottie gave him another elite perimeter stopper and decision-making. Michael's decision-making was notoriously deficient until Phil Jackson and Scottie finally got through to him. MJ passing off to Kerr for the game-winner stood out for a reason, haha.
I think the defensive angle is a prerequisite and then from there, best decision-maker/play making wins. The Celtics had an easier time making decisions and plays because they could spread teams with 5-out ball.
LeBron was generally the best playmaker and decision-maker in any given series but he lost a ton of Finals and playoff games because of perimeter defense.
“Say what you will about Draymond Green, but he has a level of heart for playing defense that very few have ever matched.”
Its kind of funny that the Dubs had Draymond and Iguodala in the same lineup and no one noticed because Steph Curry is so good.
Also Klay Thompson.
I became a fan of the Warriors when they lost KD in the playoffs up 3-2 going into Houston for game 6 and they murdered the Rockets on their own floor, then swept the Trail Blazers without KD, and then I believe had actually solved Toronto and were going to win that series before Klay blew out his knee.
The beautiful game of Steph-Klay-Iggy-Draymond-another warm body was so aesthetically pleasing and they won with defense and toughness and IQ as much as scintillating shot-making. Steph's 4th title with Wiggins and a broken down Klay was really meaningful in this regard.
Tell you what though. First round Draymond still looked like Draymond but his offensive deficiencies were causing major issues and then Julius Randle took it to him. Tough look. He's an amazing partner for Steph, probably could have evolved to be a great partner for someone else, but Steph and his shot-making has always been the key in the bay to make the other stuff matter.