The Warriors just got out of the first round, largely owing to them committing to a small-ball lineup because of David Lee's injury. We know the Rockets have also had success after game 1 of their series by sticking with a small-ball lineup. Miami won a championship last year playing small for the most part. Is small-ball a viable way strategy for teams to be successful in the playoffs? Will more and more teams adopt this strategy?
Sure it's viable unless you run into a team with superstar-level bigs that can exploit you (think the Lakers finally overcoming the Rockets in 2009 with a steady diet of Pau-Pau-Pau) I don't know if I'd really call Miami a small-ball team, they basically have the greatest swiss-army-knife to ever take the court in LeBron which gives them so much flexibility with their line-ups.
So is a team better off trying to matchup against superstar-level bigs with mediocre/average bigs, or go the small ball route to lessen their overall impact in a series? I'd argue that if you're the underdog in the series, its best to do the latter. In effect, by doing so you're "increasing the variance". That superstar may dominate you at times on one end, but it also allows you to put them in uncomfortable situations on the other end. We know all to well how lesser teams were able to frustrate Yao Ming with this approach -- sometimes we blew them out, but other times Yao was totally taken out of the game.
Not if these small ball teams play Menphis. Imagine rockets vs Memphis and rockets going small on Zach and Gasol....
It wouldn't be favorable, to be sure, but would they be better off trying to matchup against a clearly superior player with foul-machine Greg Smith?
It's about talent. If Lebron was 7ft the Heat would be winning by way of tall ball. The NBA used to have guys like Robinson, Ewing, Olajuwon, Smits, Mutombo, Shaq, etc... You get your best players out there, you have a better chance of winning.
I think it shows that if you want to play small ball..you have to have a very good CENTER. Rockets - Omer Asik Warriors - Andrew Bogut Grizz - Marc Gasol (they do sometimes play small) Spurs - Tim Duncan Knicks - Tyson Chandler I think these centers have been playing great, especially as focal points on both ends of the floor. Conclusion: You can successfully play small ball in the playoffs, if you have a very serviceable center who can solidfy your defense, rebound, and give you a finisher around the rim.
I never like hearing about how 'something can't work' like small ball in basketball or the wildcat in football. But I also think they aren't the ideal situation to be in for the most part.
The theory of small big trend doesn't hold any truth. It's not a choice of going small or big. it's the choice of assembling the best roster full of talents that can outscore their opponents. Do you think Lakers should go small if they had healthy Pau and Dwight? Or Grizzlies going small when two of their best players are Zbo and Marc? Rockets went small on Game 2 because we have only one big man who is talented. What other choices were there when Smith sucked real bad in Game 1?? McHale had no choice but to tryout on going small. Fortunate for us, Perkin and Ibaka are not post players, or we would be exposed. Coaches go small for a few reasons: 1. Going big isn't working (often losing). Out of desperation and hoping by going small can outscore opponents. 2. Match up advantage. We went small because of reason #1.
Teams are going small because they want to put their best players on the floor. There are not very many good big players in the league right now. If you want to field a traditional roster, you are going to have to pay top dollar to some bigs who may not be very good players. It is better to get the best value per $ for the 15 man roster within reason. You then make sure your best players are on the floor. This often results in a small ball roster.
I think it's best to do the latter even if you're the over-dog .......if a there's a big advantage going small you should do it; the 95 Rockets that eventually moved to Horry at PF even though he was more of a 3 at the time are a good example. In fact I wonder if the 1994 Rockets would have been more successful vs. the Knicks had they gone a bit more asymmetric and benched Thorpe in favor of Horry at the 4 (though the Knicks could play Mason at PF who was very mobile)
Actually this is exactly what I wish the Clippers would do. My theory is that Zach and Gasol are getting all the boards as is, switching to a smaller lineup isn't going to change that. However, if you swarm their guards and use doubles with quick players, they are going to make a lot more turnovers trying to feed the bigs, and bigs have a really tough time handling the transition game that results from this. This may them to go to a smaller lineup themselves, which is exacly what you want. Don Nelson used this strategy to make GS beat the 67 win Dallas team on 07.
I never believed in staying married to the concept of "traditional" lineups. Its just still that teams like the Nash Phoenix Suns who went with lots of "small ball" or unconventional lineups, they don't even get TO the Finals. Though yes they can make some playoff noise I'd bet very much if the venerable Vernon Maxwell was benched in favor of Mario Elie, thats where the most immediate improvement woulda come. Can Mad Max be the most inefficient starter in the history of title winners?
It's only convinced me we need a Curry or Lebron. As for Houston, the team is talented enough to take 1-2 games, even from a healthy OKC team, whether they play big or small. A lot of OKc's troubles can be attributed to having to adjust to the shock of losing Westbrook and adjusting to Beverely and brooks, so i wouldn't say small ball alone is beating them so far. We've got to win this thing to be convinced of that. Even then, it doesn't prove it can win a title.
Here is how small ball works: 1) The other team has a big that's not good on offense (preferably the PF because he is smaller than the center). If this player is a beast on defense you can take him out of the paint by going small. 2) Your small ball team is better than their small ball team. The Thunder's small ball team is: Ibaka Durant Sefolosha Fisher Jackson The only guy they have who can create his own shot is Durant. The rest of them rely on Durant heavily to create their open looks. Their three point shooters aren't as good as ours and they would even get outrebounded if they try this because of Asik and our other size advantage at the two. If the other team has a better small ball team than yours or a big man with a great post game then small ball probably won't work.
I think it's a stretch to say Miami one with small ball Lets just say we are in a unique era of relatively no big men and great perimeter players and PGs. There was not a PF or C in the too 10 scorers. Has that ever happened before. Of course, love would have been top 10. But I think there was only 2 in the too 20 or something The phenomenon is not that the NBA has evolved to small ball. It's thAt it has adapted to no big men and taking advantage of it
