Motion Offense

HaHa. Sac runs a motion type offense, just as NJ runs the Princeton offense, but Doc Rivers didn't run anything in ORL.

His offense was, give T-mac the ball and move out of the way. He doesn't call plays,. He's a heart and hustle coach, motivator type run every play through your star player. Ask Boston fans why they hate him so much.

With the initial post, our team does need more movement instead of the stiff pass into the post, kick out to the stand still players because it doesn't put any pressure on the defense. You don't hit those shots the team dies. Yao can't do it all, and there isn't enough movement to keep the defense honest.
How many times have you seen guys just wait for the pass they knew was going into Yao and lunge at the ball for the steal?

 

I'm not sure you guys all actually get what a true motion offense is. GATER had a pretty good description of why it wouldn't work for us and NO NBA team employs a true motion offense. Phil Jackson uses the triangle, which is not a true motion offense and Sacramento long used a modifed version of the Princeton motion offense, but not in the purest form.

And who said Utah? Utah has never used a motion offense. They utilize a series of multiple screens designed to free open shooters, particularly along the baseline, and the pick and roll, which happens to be the bread and butter of virtually every NBA team. The Rockets actually employ both of those techniques.

The reason the pick and roll and the post up are utilized by so many teams is because it creates high percentage mismatches.

In the NBA, the most successful offenses are run by teams like Phoenix and Dallas, who utilize very little half-court scheming. Phoenix wants to get a shot before 7 seconds has elapsed from the shot clock with the philosophy that the more shots they get the better. As the league evolves, this will become more common than complicated offensive sets, particularly the motion offense which takes time to set up and even more time to run.

Our number one problem as a team is that we are inefficient on offense because of turnovers. The motion offense's biggest drawback is that, when not run by the right personnel, it can lead to large numbers of turnovers - the reason it is frequently abandonded along with the fact that it has the tendency to wear down NBA players who have to play in 82 games rather than 30 per season.

The biggest reason it wouldn't work for the Rockets is that it would serve to do EXACTLY what so many of you (rightfully) wouldn't want. It would take the ball away from Yao and off of the post, where he is dominant.

 

Everyone thinks they can be a coach and that they have a better understanding of the game of basketball then JVG despite having never played organized ball....

 

I agree. I am not saying get rid of isolation of Yao and Tmac completely. I am saying dont rely on it for entire 48 minutes.

As most already agree to, we need *some* unpredictability on offense. During last 5 minutes of game when defense is swarming all over the place, it makes it extra hard for Yao and Tmac to produce. For Yao particularly, this will lead to a lot of turnovers.

As it stands, good teams will double team Tmac out on the 3 point circle (either off of a pick and roll or straight up double team) to make him get rid of the ball. They will gladly let any other player take a contested shot or let the ball go to Yao, who will be hacked when it gets really hard to get foul calls called.

Excellent defensive teams really do not have to work too hard to slow down a Yao/Tmac combo. With unpredictability, it will keep them honest.

 

Nice post Zboy. Not that the teams needs a motion offense, but they need more off the ball movement. More cutting and less standing still like chess pieces. In the latest Chronicle article, Assistant coach Gundy has just noticed that the team shoots too many 3's and how he needs to add more variety into the offense. Can anyone tell me where this guy has been the last 3 years. We'll see if he changes some things, but with the way he's been, I doubt it.

 

I am not asking for a proof but can you state your reasoning behind this?

How are the two correlated?

Why cant players run a motion-like offense on one end and play solid defense on the other end if some coach came in and instilled both philosophies?

The way I see it, Kings werent a defensive juggernaut because Adelman did not emphasize on defensive but over all basketball play. Gundy, on the other hand, is heavy on defense and thus you see his teams exert a lot more energy on defense.

Why is it not possible for a coach to take pros from both and come up with a balance?

 

Aren't motion offenses generally used by teams that don't have one or two dominant scorers? I don't know if it makes sense for this team, particularly when on the other end our philosophy is to expend a lot of energy on team defense.

 

Motion offense makes perfect sense because it's different from Van Gundy's offense and whatever Van Gundy doesn't play must be good. See also Novak, Steve; Nachbar, Boki; Swift, Stromile.

 

While motion offenses are often fun to watch, they have several problems:

1) A tendency to yield 15-foot jump shots, rather than shots in the paint.
2) Role players end up taking more shots, rather than your stars.
3) General unreliability because too many players are involved in each play.

Let me explain:
1) Tendency to yield jump shots.
Consider the teams that have used some sort of motion, and what for them would be considered a good shot. Adelman's Kings: Webber 15-footers, Bibby 15-footers, Divac 15-footers. 80's Nuggets: 15-footers by Alex English ,15-footers by Fat Lever, 15-footers by Orlando Woolridge. Current Pistons: Rip Hamilton 15-footers, Rasheed Wallace 15-footers.

It's tempting to salivate about the layups that motion offenses also generate, but they're really not that common. In the NBA, it's easy to overplay the lane and guarantee that the backdoor play never happens. This means the only option left is a semi-open 15-footer. These shots are almost always worse shots than a postup (assuming you have a strong post player) or a well-executed pick-and-roll. This is why the bread-and-butter for the Malone-Stockton teams was not a motion offense, but rather a traditional pick and roll or postup with Malone. Jump shots also tend to yield long rebounds, which generate fast breaks for the other team. That's part of why a motion offense is inherently worse defensively.

2) Role players end up taking more shots.
This is not a terrible thing in theory, since it's always good to get people involved. But honestly, which shot would you rather have at the end of the game: Yao isolated 1-on-1 or Rafer Alston with a catch-and shoot 15-footer?

3) General unreliability
JVG's team, while somewhat boring to watch, is built for playoff basketball. In other words, it's built for situations where each team knows the other's plays very well and winning is a matter of execution. Which play do you think is easier to execute: a) Feed Yao and spot up, or b) A play with multiple screens, multiple cutters, and each player having to make decisions about at least two options?

IMO, a motion offense is in general inferior to a post offense, at least if you have a good post player. There are a few teams for which a motion offense is passable, namely teams filled with swingmen, jump shooters, and superior athletes, but I don't think that's what we have, and it's not what we should be trying to achieve. Do we really want to make our team play like Seattle?

However, I do agree we could use some creativity in cuts to the basket. I think our goal should be to get layups at the rate of the Dream-led Rockets. Otis Thorpe got a lot of dunks off of Pick-and-Rolls, or just cleanup plays. It would be good if JVG could configure the offense for Chuck Hayes to get a few more of those.

 

Can the Rockets offensive playbook be explained in terms of the plays described here:
http://www.cybersportsusa.com/hooptactics/offensiveguide.asp

Is there anything distinctive about our offensive strategy, as far as the type of plays we run? I remember last year Hubie Brown was speaking favorably about our offense and the way we utilize misdirection to get Yao better post up opportunities.

 

That's like going to your favorite artists fansite and talking about how you would re-write the lyrics to their songs.

 

Why do you hate the troops?

One can of course criticize both the current administration of the USA and the current administration of the Rockets. However,

(1) Is the US record for the War in Iraq the equivalent of 8-4 (with a few not no comfortable blown leads)? Really, I think the Bush administration is a little closer to the Isiah Thomas administraion than to the JVG/Morey/CD administration. I think Bush can only wished for 8-4 in Iraq.

The tone of some of the "criticism" of the Rockets coaching/front office would make one think that the Rockets just finished the equivalent of the deadliest month in Iraq.

(2) Even with the criticism of Bush, and let's say that Bush's handling of everything in the War on Terror, including Iraq, is a disaster, one can argue about what is reasonable cricitism and what is unreasonable criticism. Some people, for example, maintain going into Iraq is not neccesarily a bad decision, but doing so without sufficient troop level or any committment to the safety of the Iraqi people is. Just because some of us disagree with some of the critics of the administraton doesn't mean we think all criticism should be shut off.

 

thats all and fine, but I think where alot of the peoblems people have come from not discussing what they would do IF they were doing the job, but constant and unending posts of name calling ansd cussing in general of the team and coaches just because they refuse to do what some of these self-styled "Exp-erts" thinks is best.

nope...my beef is with the ones that get hostile towards you if you dont agree the ROckets are f*ucked up and the coach is sh*t and you as a poster are plain stupid morons if you dont subscribe to their theories of who is the worst and what is the best idea.

Discussions from different viewpoints is one thing....but that attitude amongst certain posters does nothing to generate thoughtful and intelligent discussion.

this thread is nice in that it isnt yet devolved into that...but it doesnt take much for it to happen these days.

My viewpoint actually comes from worrying about the genral state of this forum...I got faith the ROckets will do whats right, so I dont worry as much about them...but this forum is sopmething special with good peoples for the most part...I hate to see the good people ran off and the discussions degenerate into lame ESPN or RealGM style crap.

 

I caused way too much confusion here. I should've never mentioned "motion offense". It's just that in the other thread, we were talking about Luther Head, and of course he played under Bruce Webber's motion offense in Illinois. As it turns out, I don't want a real "motion offense". I just want an offense with more movement, more unpredictability.

I'm getting a bit irritated that I have to keep repeating myself, but to make this short, I just want to see more off-the-ball movement in the offense from the role players (especially when T-Mac or Yao has the ball). That's really all I wanted to say. More movement of the role players translates to:

- More chaos for the defense because of the unpredictability.
- Prevent double teams on Yao and T-Mac --> reducing both of their turnovers --> reducing opponent fast break points.
- Increases our FG% with the easy baskets and open jumpshots for role players, especially if the defense insists on not letting our two stars beat us.
- Forces isolation of Yao and T-Mac.
- Increases overall offensive efficiency as far as using the capabilities of our new and old role players. If you have role players that can run, why are they standing on the perimeter?

The offense JVG is using now was pretty appropriate last year and the year before considering the lack of speed and athleticism. Now that we upgraded the team in those two categories, it's time JVG upgrades his offensive scheme (as in more off-the-ball movement basically).

I appreciate that my initial post is getting this much attention, even if it was for all the wrong reasons.

 

Actually I'd say that the Rockets do use a lot of Zones, Zippers and Baseline Exchange offenses. But it's really impossible to analyse NBA offenses and classify them in that way, because coaches change and tweak the plays every so often to keep opponents confused.

But basically, the team does use a lot of misdirection plays to swing Yao from one side of the lane to the other and get the ball at the weakside where he has room to work. And as for perimeter plays, other than the Tmac-Yao high pick and roll, our shooters generally get freed up from a lot of zipper and baseline plays with guys coming off back picks and down screens.

It's effective, but a lot of these sort of plays generally get very predictable after awhile, and teams will start to overplay and deny the ball.

And brining up an old point to Van Gundier, the Tmac-centred Orlando team doesn't run Motions. Primarily, Doc Rivers ran ALOT of 1-4 high screen situations to iso Tmac and let him freelance. Basically let him take on the entire defense by himself and make adequate decisions depending on how the defense reacts.

 

Sure.. but if there is a budding civil war among the Rocket players and denial of all problems from the coaching staff, then I'd be worried.

Right now, Van Gundy and the players have all admitted they have certain problems to fix and say they are working on different things to fix them. Quite a bit different of an attitude than "Mission Accomplished," no?

True... saying "coach knows more bball than you!" is not a legitimate way to argue. Pretty much every coach knows more bball than us, but some of them still suck at coachin NBA basketball.

What gets me annoyed is that people making up completely incorrect factual allegations (like terse citing the January 2004 signing of Mark Jackson somehow prevented the Rockets from drafting/signing Beno Udrih in 2003 prior to him declaring for the draft) just to fit their fantasized theory of why Van Gundy sucks.