The Kitchen

I am going to present an argument regarding our style of play which will, I hope, help explain why we are having some offensive difficulties this year, and furhter help to explain why inside-out basketball is not only better basketball in general, but better for this team in particular. To do so, I am going to construct an argument in stages, and any one with which you disagree, please feel free to explain how and why.


A) Riley's Defensive Philosophy


Jeff Van Gundy is a disciple of Pat Riley, and nowhere is this more evident than in his philosphy on team defense. Riley's primary defensive construct is that refs can't call fouls all the time, and that pushing the envelope on defense leaves refs with two choices; foul out entire teams and be seen to be the determining factor in games, something which no one desires, or adapt to the style. Riley believes, and his record has supported the idea that refs will adapt almost all of the time.

The second part of his idea is therefore, once a coach and team are aware of the fact that you can force the refs to adapt by taking the initiative, the team which is most used to and comfortable in that adjusted level of physical play will be the one which profits most from same, somewhat like having a running team in Denver, etc. Remember that coaches are constantly looking for ways to be the team which establishes the tone of games, and while this has normally been done on offense, in New York Riley developed a way to do it on defense.

So JVG has adopted that style, and his idea for our team defense is to raise the level of acceptable physical contact on defense. This is, in part, why he favors one on one defense, wherein you can most exploit that increased permissivnesss without embarrassing the refs into calling fouls against your team.

B) Offensive Cost


Now the fact that your defense is able to get away with this on defense comes at a necessary cost; it means that the opposing defense will also play under looser constraints defensively. It is assumed that our defense will be better at exploiting this system, but it is also assumed that, in time, our offense will be more accustomed to playing against more physical defenders than other teams. That our overall offense will be less than it would given normal circumstances is a given, but that it will achieve at a higher rate than the other offenses, given experience, is also expected.

C) Why Inside Out

Given that we have to expect to face tougher defenses every night, the question of how to attack physical defense is an interesting one. One of the advantages that perimeter players have had since the hand-check regulation has been that in general players in the outside are more exposed, and as such refs are less permissive of ohyscial contact. Conversly, players on the inside are already facing fairly consistent punding, and as such the refs are less prone to calling fouls which are a result of same. But what happens whien you turn up the heat across the board?

Well, on the one hand, this is most evident on the perimeter, as that is where refs are seeing one on one players in most contrast, and that is where they are forced to make the decision Riley's philosophy has forced upon them. As such, with the exception of obvious overzealous contact, the bar is most raised there. On the inside, there isn't all that much further defense can go without getting ridiculous, and as such there is less f an adjustment. Secondly, inside players are already more accustomed to playing with and through contact, so that, too, makes it less of an adjustment.

Therefore, a team which is forcing a higher level of defensive contact is better served by going inside first. In such an environment, inside out basketball is at it's most effective. This is, in part, why Riley's Knicks team succeeded most until it met a team which used the inside-out game even better than they did. Think about the principle of inside-out. Ball goes into the post, post player either takes his man, or passes out of the double. We all know this like the alphabet...but think about this system with the defensive heat heightened.

When the ball goes in, the offensive player is expected to take his idividual defender, and even given increased defensive contact, the inside game still favors the talented post player, as he is closer, and more able to initiate contact while protecting the ball. A perimeter player has to expose the ball when initiating contact, and when that contact is less likely to be rewarded with a foul, the potential cost of that increase is higher; turnovers or off balance shots normally made to get the and-1 call.

Conversly, the inside player can still pass out of the double, and what is more, the double is less effective, relatively speaking. An inside double team is a tactical adjustment, and is not at all premissed on being able to be physical, but rather to cut off angles, of both passing and approach to the basket. Once a team commits to an inside double, they have effectively surrendered the defensive advantage afforded by higher contact.

Once the ball comes outside out of the double, the offense has the initiative, to shoot the open jumper, or start the ball swing which will accomplish same. Again, here, the increased contact level is least effective, as a player left alone need not worry about any contact, let alone that of the increased variety, and the players getting the ball on the swing are facing players running out at them, wherein the option is to shoot if open, or pass if the defender is getting there quickly enough. In effect, you have made defense dependant on quickness, and elimiated their ability to use contact against the offensive player.


That is my argument. When you raise the heat on defense, you must A) expect a lessening of offensive success in general, and B) be aware that the offensive system which best counters the reciprocative defensive contact is the inside-out game. That we have the capacity to run this offense is even more reason to commit to it, and furthermore might be part of the reason JVG felt his defensive system would work here in the first place. But the players we have must adjust...the perimeter players must realize the long-term benefits of comitting to inside-out, and the interior players have to adjust more to the increased contact. It should only be a matter of time before the players we have, for the most part, amke these adjustments to the raised heat level. At some point, however, it might be concluded , for whatever reason, that some of our players are unwilling to play the way we need them to in this sytem, not so much on defense, which adjustment most of our players have already embraced, but on the other end, where the other team gets to turn up the heat. Those players that can't or won't take the heat....well, we all know where they can go...

 

Nice response, but I honestly don't see where we disagree. My point and yours are not mutually exclusive. Nowhere in Riley's philosphy is it dependant on having little talent. Will it help make up for lesser talent? Yes...but, if utilzed properly, it will also make better use of talent.

Secondarily, there are two ways to establish your team's tempo; on offense, as most do, or on defense, as Riley ( since NY) and his disciples choose to do. We are clearly establishing that we are a team which prioritizes defensive tone over offensive success. And our defensive system is to raise the heat...and on defense, I think, we don't necessarily have superior talent than Riley's Knicks...probably less in fact. As such, the talent is incrporated into the offensive set which best compliments JVG/Riley's defensive system. Sure, if we could play Riley defense while affording ourselves the luxery of making the best use of our talent on offense, with other teams playing stadard defense, we would...but the game doesn't work that way; there is a trade-off, and we have chosen to take the D, and make the tradeoff on offense. And inside-out is the best way to play against the kind of D we'll be facing.

 

I think we are misunderstanding each other. I do not think our objective on offense is to wear the other team down...that is our objective on defense. What I am saying is that when we force refs to allow a higher level of contact on D, we have to expect to face a higher level of contact when we have the ball, and that inside-out is the best way to neutralize that contact. Add to that the fact that, in playing these games every night, we should be more accustomed to them, as opposed to teams which only face that kind when going up against us, or teams like us, and familiarity, in this case, will breed relative success.

 

A) The problem with playing Riley style against the Bulls was that the Bulls of that age had the refs in their pocket. If you look back at their match-ups, you will see a lot of NY guys getting into foul trouble early on...

B) No doubt that necessity was the mother of invention...I doubt any coach with tons of talent would have been the first to adopt the style that Riley did, because it's a gamble, and really hard work for the coach. But once he did discover that, when push comes to shove, the refs will back down, he has gone with it ever since.

 

Agreed, as in above post...but further's my point re: inside out game and this style. In both teams where it worked, the key component ofr inside out style, a franchise center, was in place. As is the case in Houston.

 

Simply put, no I don't think we're tough enough. I think Yao can easily develop it, and so too can either Steve or Cat. I do think, however, that it is unlikely that this style of physical pounding can be best utilized by a smaller backcourt most noted for it's quickness. As such, I am unsure that it can remain as is if we are to achieve our best. The obvious answer is move Cat, to another team or the 6th man spot for which he might be ideally suited. This is not a shot at Mobley, who, as his defenders will be quick to point out, is cheap, has been a loyal Rocket, has been asked to, and attempted to alter his game several times since joining the team, and has some very nice strengths as a player. I simply feel that a starting backcourt of 6-3/6-, in today's game, is small to begin with, and on a tough defensive team, over the long haul, might be too small to keep up the grind.

Getting a shooter like Pike back will, however, open things up a little bit, and make the ride a little smoother and easier. While the key component to an inside out game is a dominant center, another valuable piece is a guy who consistently makes you pay from the outside for leaving him open. Once you establish that, it's another counter to physical defense.