In my opinion, the NBA is moving towards the inevitable globalization of basketball rules so the game is- a. played exactly the same all over the world. b. controlled by David Stern all over the world. OK, enough with the conspiricy theories (although I am full of them). The impending zone rules are going to shape the NBA rosters very differently from last year. Already, we see more interest in players like Matt Bullard and Walt Williams, who can hit the outside shot and stretch a zone defense. It appears to me that the Rockets in the perfect position with their current roster to take advantage of the new rule changes. To beat a zone of any kind, a basketball team must possess both good outside shooting and the ability to break down a defense with aggressive drives to the basket. When I think of backcourts designed for this style of play, there are a few that are obviously excellent. Fisher and Bryant Cassell and Allen Armstrong and McGrady Davis and Wesley underrated in my opinion, Bibby and Dickerson Francis and Mobley The new zone defenses will hurt dominant inside play, and force ball movement. Teams like Milwaukee, Houston, and Orlando will be helped immensly. Chicago, San Antonio, New York, and Miami will not benefit. The Rockets roster should be affected this way- IN Players- Francis, Mobley, Norris, Bullard, Williams, Langhi, Thomas, Collier, Olajuwon OUT Players- Anderson, Rogers, Cato I think the Rockets need players who can a. hit the outside shot and free throws b. be quick and athletic enough to play swarm defense c. exhibit strong tendencies for team play and unselfishness. In the past, we looked for bruisers like Cato who could manhandle the competition (when he felt so inclined), block shots, and control the interior. Now, I think the interior will be controlled by team play and solid fundamentals. I hope the Rockets get a chance to draft a player that is a. looooooong b. capable of playing 2 positions c. can knock down the 18 footer d. mature Rodney White, Vlad the Rad, Loren Woods, Joe Johnson, Troy Murphy, and Pau Gasol all qualify for my interpretation of what the Rockets need. 10 more days, and we will find out! ------------------
I agree with your conclusions about Stern and global ball. Stern wants to be the guy who puts the world in the NBA and the NBA in the world. I think it will happen. I also agree with most of your post, except I do not like some of the players you mention as well as you do. Foreign players are more difficult to assess, and there is always the Turkcan/Weiss experience to fear. I like Johnson, but can we get him? Ditto for Gasol. I'm not that high on Wood, but will take just about anyone to replace Cato. White seems to be moving on up, and he sure has some impressive supporters. ------------------
lol. Thank you pinetree for brinking up memories of Weiss. I just remembered Carter jumping right over him and dunking it. ------------------ PrEsident of The Danforth Langhford FAN CLUB... He IS our future All-Star Small Forward
beckerfan, There are two sides to the court. Dominant big men might be hurt by a zone, but how are they hurt any more than the driver/slashers are. Plus, who anchors the zone anyhow? It consistently boggles me to read bball analysis about the zone by saying this makes drivers/shooters more important, as if to say better. You are not the first to say this....many paid journalists and coaches are saying the same thing. How do driver/slashers flourish more now than before? The answer is they don't, because zone can only increase the defenses ability to show several different looks (including man on man). Zones do not hurt any facet of playing defense. What will make the biggest difference with zones is actually the one consistent truth at every level, dominant big men make you better. Sure, we can argue that zones make defending dominant big men easier, but if you don't have a dominant big man, your zones won't be as good, and my dominant big men will make my inside offensive game better than yours. You know, inside the paint where it is easiest to score and get second chance rebounds. My dominant big man will hurt your driver/slashers more than your pissy shooters will hurt him. My dominant big man will allow my defenders to take chances at covering your shooters around the perimeter, while my dominant big man will make it harder for you to cover my shooters. Saying zone makes one style flourish is an exaggeration to make a point, at best. Don't forget one real truth in basketball, dominant big men make everything easier! My prediction is that the zone will further create a rift between the success of teams with dominant big men from the have-nots.
Heypartner: Yes, but my jump shooting center will still pull your dominant big man out to the perimeter, thus freeing up my slashers to take advantage . Go jason Collier! I don't think the zone is going to make slashers more important. I do think it's going to lend a premium to jump shooters. The zone, after all, is less effective the further you draw it out. And it will make it easier to put more bodies on your dominant big man... so that he needs those jump shooters even more. Remember Seattle's solution to Hakeem? That'll become easier to do. ------------------ Lacking inspiration at the moment...
No it doesn't Haven, because zone allows me to keep my big man in the middle, and I can go guard your big shooter with a perimeter zone. You are using illegal defense logic. [This message has been edited by heypartner (edited June 18, 2001).]
Look at it this way, Collier can go stand weakside on the baseline all he wants, but Shaq is going to stop Mobley from ISO-ing. Shaq's teammates who are playing perimeter zone are responsible for making sure Collier doesn't get a wide open shot. There is no way Collier stepping out to the perimeter is going to make me tell Shaq to follow him. The point is, zone does not make the game easier for ANYONE. Including the shooters. To me, the best we can say in my opinion is the short defensive specialists are now not as important as the shooters/slashers. But shooters/slasher do not make your life easier than a dominating big man. And you Seattle argument is one-sided. You fail to consider the increased effect Dream would have on Seattle's offense if he was allowed to play zone. You can forget all those Payton low-post ISOs that triggered everything. [This message has been edited by heypartner (edited June 18, 2001).]
Heypartner: Fine, then Collier still gets a shot over someone smaller than he is. Hypothetically speaking, let's say Houston has Jason Collier at C, Robert Horry at PF, and Vlad Rad at SF. One of them is going to get a shot over someone much smaller than him. Fine, Shaq's guarding the middle against Mobley's penetration. If we have 6'10 guys who can rain 3's down all day, who cares? ------------------ Lacking inspiration at the moment...
Pro players are too skilled one on one for your power center to hang out in the lane. Think of how effective a full press can be in college. Do pro teams have trouble breaking a press? Nope, and this new rule will open up the floor and bring finesse back to the NBA. It consistently boggles me to read bball analysis about the zone by saying this makes drivers/shooters more important, as if to say better. You are not the first to say this....many paid journalists and coaches are saying the same thing. Maybe I am on to something! ------------------ [This message has been edited by beckerfan (edited June 18, 2001).]
Haven, Swing the ball all you want, but Collier can be denied that pass, and denied room to shoot. Just because your defender is shorter, does not me you are open for a shot. All these scenarios aside, you are not hearing what I am saying. I am saying that ALL your scenarios currently exist!! How does allowing zone all of a sudden make something work better than before. My point is, nothing works better than before. You simply keep exaggerating the effectiveness of shooters now versus next year to make a point about the zone. It is the effectiveness of short defensive specialists like Shandon, Augmon and Christie that go down relative to shooters. I simply do not buy your argument. I am not saying 3s can't be rained over a zone. But they can be rained over a man game too. Dominant big men make shooters better than Reggie Miller makes average big men better. And without a doubt, a dominant big man makea all defenders (thus defenses) better. Shooters are more widely available commodities. Give me a dominant big man, and I have every chance to surround him with tall shooters as you have to surround Collier with them. Did I not explain what I'm saying, or are you just not buying it? The effectiveness of all offenses go down with no illegal defense. The effectiveness of all defenses go up. So if I have a dominant big man, does my offensive effectiveness go down more than my defensive effectiveness go up? You saying a team of shooters/slashers can beat a zone, says nothing about my contention that zones will lend more success to dominant big men who are surrounded by shooters/slasher. [This message has been edited by heypartner (edited June 18, 2001).]
Heypartner: Maybe it will have no effect. That's very possible. I'm just saying there will be a *relative* increase on the importance of shooters. I do agree that the zone will be more effective in preventing slashing. So even if shooters can't cause more damage, isn't it safe to assume that their significance will increase relative to slashers? I think that's why Duke usually beats Temple, even when other teams can't. Most college teams have to rely on lots of slashing because they have range problems. Temple nails these sorts of teams, that rely on athleticism and slashing. Duke, OTOH, simply shoots 3's all night over the zone, and wins. ------------------ Lacking inspiration at the moment...
First, don't give me the Temple debate unless you can name one time that they've had a dominant big man. You are not even following my discussion here. I am talking about dominant big men! And I am not disagreeing. You continuing to say this without acknowledging what a dominant big man does for a defense simply shows you only wanting to talk about about your side of this thread. I'm saying you are exaggerating at the expense of denying the increased importance of dominant big men. I am saying the "relative" increase will be most evident in the teams who have a dominant big men surrounded my drivers/shooters. It boggles my mind that you say the early 90's Seattle beats Hakeem with shooters in an illegal defense world without even acknowledging what Hakeem would have done to Payton's low post ISO's in a zone world. My point is only about dominant big men. Like...3 players. My point is solely about those teams lucky enough to have a dominant big men will benefit from the zone more than the Knicks, thus creating a larger rift in anyone's ability to beat LA.
I suppose I'm going to be forced to agree with you, then . Thanks for clarifying. ------------------ Lacking inspiration at the moment...
Yeah, this is what bothers me. While we are discussing the "relative" merits of a Bullard vs Shandon or Collier over Cato, we lose sight that we have little chance of gaining a "relative" advantage on playing defense versus other teams. Every defense is improving with the eradication of illegal defense. Relatively speaking, we must show more of a sum gain in our offense vs other offenses and compare that to the improved defenses vs our defense. That is, if my offense doesn't suffer as much as yours, but your defense gets much better than mine...who wins? Just saying we have great shooters, penetrators and slashers and less defensive holes with zone does not mean the Rockets and Knicks show more overall improvement than Miami or Denver (not to mention LA, SA and Dallas with the preying mantis). [This message has been edited by heypartner (edited June 18, 2001).]
It's an artificial constraint though heyp. I don't even know why it matters. Do you like watching players point at their opponent's feet like a bunch of ****ing dorks? I don't. Free for all babaaaay. I don't know what the effects will be on big men... but they've pretty much always dictated the outcome of games anyhoo. Now we at least abandon a stupid rule. BTW... and I suppose we'll end up discussing unscientific truisms about 'nba talent' vs. the NCAA, but why have the NCAA tourneys not been more dictated by 'big man' play? Has something changed lately in NCAA rules? Where did Wake go back in Duncan's years? COC nearly knocked 'em out first round(COC represent)! Webber got a trophy... oh wait, no he didn't. Duncan got a trophy... oh wait, no he didn't. Shaq got a trophy... oh wait, no he didn't. What's keeping your doomsday scenarios in check in the NCAA heyIlikeweirdartificialrules? ------------------ When this guy started smoking 40 years ago, people had no idea it was bad for you. People had to guess based on the hacking cough, shortness of breath, and bloody phlegm girl you looks good won't you mock that draft up?!
Stay on topic Achebe. Becker is talking about the "effects on the roster". I added that he is not looking at the defensive side of things, simply relying on our defensive weaknesses being covered up by the zone. Rudy wants to attack the zone...likely with tall shooters. He must temper that with trying to take advantage of easier defensive rules on the other side of the court, like other coaches will be doing. For next year, I agree with beckerfan. We should not concern ourselves too much with utilizing zones to their upmost potential. We should focus on trying to drastically improve our offense, since we are a Have-Not in the world of dominant big men. It is likely futile to do battle from the perspective of drastically improving our defense. My point, while lost on Haven, was that there are enough athletic shooters in this league to go around (can I say Fox, Horry and Fischer without gritting my teeth) for any coach to surround big men. Our shooters and scorers must overwhelm the competition to improve (the Bullard's aren't going to cut it), because our defense will not improve at the rate of Atlanta, Denver, Dallas, Miami, SA, etc. [This message has been edited by heypartner (edited June 18, 2001).]
oh heyp, I didn't mean to get off of topic. I think that I was reading that thread in which someone posted: Perhaps 'better', but not necessarily 'best'. You've expressed an opinion earlier, as in this thread, that there's going to be a dichotomy that perhaps can't be overcome b/c of the 'dominant big men'. I believe that's bull****... b/c of players that can exploit seams, such as Cuttino or the Matt Bullards or 6'11" Langhis of the world that will just shoot over the damn thing. Since you posted, in this thread, that dominant big men are the most influential variable in the zone, I ask you why this apparently hasn't been the case in the NCAA. Where's Shaq's collegiate trophy? ------------------ When this guy started smoking 40 years ago, people had no idea it was bad for you. People had to guess based on the hacking cough, shortness of breath, and bloody phlegm girl you looks good won't you mock that draft up?!
