You're not following. The other team plays 5x5 against us, while we go 4x4 against them without their best perimeter defender. The point is 4x4 situations are always easier than 5x5 in the NBA. Sure it's not sustainable as the other team doesn't have to go way out to cover Harden without the ball...playing role of the decoy. But then that means the 4x4 made them give up playing ball-denial tight D on him, and we're back to being played straight up in our normal offense It's a Win
well duh. i'm not advocating that harden stand on one side of the floor the whole game. but 4x4 is not ALWAYS easier. If you are loosing the most important part of the offense to play 4x4. Even without their best perimeter defender most teams would chose to play the rockets 4x4 without Harden involved. That's an absolute no brainer.
It's not a no brainer, as teams don't do it much. 4x4 is very tough to guard. NBA players like Gordon can eat that up. And it gives open drives for role players like Dekker and even Brewer to exploit. Side PNRs become extra though to guard too There is a lot you have big problems defending when the game is 4x4. Imso you aren't appreciating this fact.
I get what you are saying in theory, but you are right, I don't agree that Brewer, gordon or dekker suddenly turn into consistently capable playmakers when it is 4x4. I don't agree that because there are more driving lanes these guys suddenly become valid options to run offense through. If you polled every other team in the league and asked if they were OK with "loosing" their best perimeter defender if it guaranteed that James harden stayed out of plays, every single team would take that option. Harden (and the rockets) are having this type of year because Harden is creating such a high percentage of the offense. If you take Harden out of plays, you take away the rocket's decided advantage. I really don't see how it could be argued otherwise?
4x4 is much more effective when there is a glaring mismatch that we can take advantage of (Dekker vs Gasol/Randolph etc.). This same play vs say the Warriors will not work as well.
I agree...if there is a glaring mismatch....but otherwise i don't see it is a sustainable winning strategy.
Played high school and college ball, can confirm. offense becomes easier with more space. The worst 4 offensive players in the NBA could probably beat the best 4 defensive players in the NBA. Change it to 5v5, and the defense is going to come out in top ALOT more often. It's a good call imo. The rockets are a damn good offensive team, and taking Tony Allen away from Memphis is going to hurt them a lot more than taking James harden away from our offense. At least when the game is 4v4.
Good point and it's also why I think we will be even more dangerous as the season ends heading into the post season. MDA keeps saying that the offense can get a lot better. I'm guess this is what he means by that. Harden is still Learning to be a true pg and how to deal with all these different defenses. The Memphis game was a great adjustment by coach and harden. We really handled them form the 2nd quarter on and got the big 20+ point win.
5x5 is more effective when there is a glaring mismatch, too. You make no point here. 4x4 is more effective and efficient offense in the NBA than 5x5. Trust us. These NBA players can eat it up, and they don't need mismatches. We can go round and round here, but it is a fundamental fact of NBA basketball that the offense has more and more advantages with less players on the court. imso, going 4x4 against GSW is a lot easier than 5x5 if it's Green that leaves the play to cover someone 30' away. No one said it's sustainable, because few defenses would allow the game to go 4x4. They'd rather guard Harden other ways with 5 players. A side-line inbounds play with Harden 30-35' away and being denied the ball is very much beatable by leaving Harden there and going 4x4. It's a sustainable inbounds play, if that's what the defense gives you. Compare that to Capela coming way out to give a pick for Harden to shed the ball-denial and Harden is steered right into a ICE defender, with weakside help leaning in, and Capela out of the play 25-30' away. I don't mean to say there aren't other ways to beat ball-denial out high, just that this is one of them. It's a fine decision for a coach to attack high ball-denial with 4x4. If you can't hurt 4x4 defense at high efficiency, then you need to make some trades.
I noticed this as well...it's somewhat similar to what some teams have done to neutralize Kawhi Leonard's incredible defensive ability. It's minor (yet majorly impactful) adjustments like these that set MDA apart from weak/average coaches such as McHale or JBB. Now we just need to hope we can somehow figure out how to beat San Antonio, because we are on a collision course with them in the WCSF.
Well, there is that. Also I can't understand the diagram without sound and breaking it down with moving players on a board. This is needed by a fan who never played organized bball. Why is four on four so harder to defend than 5 on five?
It is a much better strategy to exploit the double teams when they come. that way you are ideally creating more 4x3 situations and more wide open shots. That is where Harden makes his money. That is why he is the MVP. not because he is a good decoy from 30' feet. If teams want to run 2 guys at him so be it. He is a masterful pocket passer, and he doesn't mind when two guys run at him because that opens up his passing lanes. The reason teams don't go 4x4 often is because good facilitators don't let themselves become decoys. They would much rather be defended by 2 guys than be a non-factor in the offense. Edit: I do agree with you though in certain situations it is something you can go to to prevent ball denial....IMO I would rather not see it....
This was article was posted previously. Perhaps Tony Allen is Kawhi lite. So it offers explanation of why sagging high could work --> http://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/k...at-at-defense-hes-actually-hurting-the-spurs/
No, the reason this doesn't happen is because few players are defended at 35' by an aggressive ball-denial defense. When you are defended that way, going 4x4 allows offenses many ways to get the possession a drive, open look or even 3x2 from a sideline PnR. We can go around and around with this...you just don't appreciate what these NBA athletes can do when you take a defender off the floor. Offenses will run at a higher efficiency ... that's why defenses don't do it.
It's an offenses' choice to have their best player sag off. it is not a defensive choice. If harden wanted to stand there at 30' for the entire game he could. Based on your reasoning there is no reason why he wouldn't either, if the offense becomes as unstoppable as you say it does. I guess we can agree to disagree here....
