It depends on whether the opposing team has the players and the coaches to exploit the mismatch. The rule of thumb is: If they can't post up against your smaller guys, then you can get away with playing smallball. Think: MIA vs. OKC. Can OKC post up on MIA's smaller defenders? Nope. Okay, MIA can play smallball against OKC. Think: HOU vs. ORL. Can HOU post up on ORL's smaller defenders? Yes. Lin force-fed the post in the 1st quarter relentlessly against ORL's severely undersized Tobias Harris. Both Asik and Smith started 4-for-4, effectively ending the game in the first 6 minutes. Nope...ORL...bad idea... Think: GSW vs DEN without Galinari. Andre Miller can post up smaller guards, but that's about it for DEN. Can GSW play small ball? Yes, no problem. Think: LAL vs HOU. Can HOU play small ball against Gasol + Dwight? Nope, even D'Antoni recognized the mismatch and went to the post up relentlessly. Dropped seeds giving away 8 free points in 55 seconds of small ball.
I concur. Small ball would not work against the Grizzlies because: 1) Randolph would kill us on the boards. We would get one three on the other side while they would get two or three shots on the other side 2) Randolph has a good post game Our best bet against the Grizz is starting a mobile PF like Thomas Robinson who can rebound and defend or a PF like Patterson who can stretch the floor. It's hard to say which one would be better because while Patterson can free up the paint with his range, Robinson increases the variance too with the possibility of being a better defender, rebounder, and putting the ball on the floor to quickly get to the rim.
This is not how small ball worked in the 80s at all. You actually did it against HOF PFs. The was and is ... If you don't have a good PF. these HOFers are going to score regardless. You might as well make them guard someone who they can't defend and then you just double team them on the other end That's the real strategy that has been around forever. But it is situational. I think what durvasa is wanting to discuss is a team designed around small ball out of need
That's why it has always failed until now. If the other team has a PF with a great offensive game then that means they have a huge advantage on one side in rebounds and matchups. I will live with the small team taking mildly contested threes on one side (I still have my center to help in the paint) if it means I get to throw the ball to someone with post moves who has 50 pounds and 2 inches on his matchup. Great players know how to get the ball and teams will do anything to feed him the ball. If the defense double teams him then it's an easy kick out/wide open shot and a good chance of getting the rebound. If they collapse when he puts the ball down and beats his man then he has a wide open cutter.
There are actually two different questions. If you ask, should a team with inferior bigs use small ball? The answer is quite obviously yes. How else can you compete? But if you ask, is a team BUILT FOR small ball better than a team build in a traditional model, with dominant big men? (assuming the overall talent level is the same) That question is a lot more difficult to answer. If the answer to this latter question is yes, then you should ALWAYS prefer a stretch 4 (or playing 3 wings) over a low post 4. But I am not sure if the answer is yes.
I tend to agree with this. It has more to do with playing your best players than using a certain strategy. To me, strategies are easily identifiable and can be adjusted to. What matters is can the players execute that strategy?
I would also think that playing small would require guards that are willing rebounders. We've got that in Harden and Beverly. They each had 8 rebounds in game 5 if I recall.
Here comes tinman....but pretty much yeah. 1994 Small Ball Rockets lineup would be somethign like Hakeem, Horry, Elie, Cassell, Smith.
Horry was 6'10. Not sure that qualifies as small ball. Small ball works only if your small-PF can defend their PF and neutralize them on the boards.
To answer you question, yes. I believe that "small ball" works now because that's where the majority of the talent pool lies. If it were possible to inject the talent of the dominant bigs of the 80s to the early 90s, I'm fairly sure you'd, at the very least, rethink your position. Duncan is the last of that generation and he's still dominant at his age to give anyone perspective of how effective a true big man is. An interesting scenario would be taking the front court rotation of the early 90s Cavs of Daugherty, Nance, and Hot Rod. They were never won a championship but if you were to insert that front court rotation in any team's line up now, they'd change the landscape of the current league.
Its dumb to play big if your bigs aren't making the opposition pay for going small. I am quite sure that a team with a good scoring 4 would eat us alive for going with this small lineup. I am glad the bigs for OKC are offensive liabilities or this series would already be over.
exactly...small ball is running 3 guards and undersized forwards out there. Miami isnt really that small. Wade has good size for a 2, LeBron is a 6'8''linebacker...chris bosh is about 7 foot...battier has good size too..Haslem isnt tall but has long arms and CHalmers is also a good size point. That said, Warriors won, but the Nuggets dont have big men who pound it inside to take advantage, they're more of a perimeter, drive and dish team. You put GS on Memphis they're gonna get abused.
Building around a dominant center is a thing of the past. Small ball is what wins championships now. This is a guard's league.
