ISO apologists really frustrate me. I'm frustrated by how they conveniently redefine ISOs as simply being the culmination/end-goal of our offensive sets, as in many other systems. I'm frustrated by how they deflect criticism, saying all good offensive systems employ the ISO to some extent. I'm frustrated by their rationalizations that you can't have post-season/4th-quarter success without featuring the ISO. Just about everyone is frustrated with how they shift blame from the ISO-oriented offense itself to the lack of preparation time, to injuries, or to the personnel's inability to execute it properly. And I'm really pissed off with how they dismiss the criticisms as unfounded because the critics aren't informed about the nuances of the offensive system, don't understand X's and O's, need to look at efficiency measures, ad nauseum. It's a matter of degree. You could say just about every play ends in an ISO -- whether it's a clear-out and dribble for 20 seconds, or a quick release after popping off a weak-side down screen, using screen-the-screener action, or whatever the f*ck. The problem is with how long the guy with the ball keeps the ball with no real plan before shooting. Or how many other guys touch the ball before the shot. Or how the ball isn't given up when the ballhandler is swarmed. Or if the ballhandler has many other options besides shooting. Or if those options really are considered by the ballhandler before jacking up a low-percentage shot. And yeah, every offense does need to ISO every now and then, but not as much as we do, or have in the past -- or looks like we're going to. Sure, things may break down into simplified ISO-style sets in 4th quarter/post-season basketball. But you first have to make it to the 4Q or the playoffs. The problem is that can't happen when most of the game and/or season looks like 20-seconds-of-dribbling-leading-to-20-foot-jumpers, or maybe 3-seconds-of-dribbling-and-jacking-a-3 -- and the other team rarely has to defend anything else. Maybe a lot of us "ISO bashers" don't understand everything there is to know about basketball playbooks. Maybe we're just know-it-alls sitting at a bar drinking beer and eating peanuts, always looking to complain about stuff we don't really understand. Maybe we should just keep our damn mouths shut, and leave everything to the professionals who know what they're doing. Which is what might end up happening if things don't truly change -- we leave them alone to play bull**** basketball, all by themselves, with no criticism, dribbling in isolation in half-empty arenas, to an endless string of lottery seasons.
Motion offenses are supposed to get the ball to players on the move so they already have a step on the defender. They're not supposed to pass the ball around until they get to someone in a standstill position to go iso. Obviously you want to milk certain situations/matchups, especially at crucial parts of games however passing three times to get iso Francis, iso Mobley, iso MoT, iso KT, etc. isn't a motion offense.
I feel that in the end of the season, we'll end up with a hybrid-version of the 5-man offense. A lot better off than last year, that's for sure. Some times the ISO is needed (broken plays and last second shots). But, if you remember the mantra of the Celtics of old, the goal of an offensive set was the get the highest percentage shot possible *every time down court.* Highest percentage means easiest, not most spectacular/difficult. That's why most of the Celtics scoring was inside dunks, or short jumpers. They mastered inside passing, not just outside passing (3 point-line, ring around the rosey). But in order to get the highest percentage shot, you need discipline and teamwork. The players all have to be on the same page. A good offensive set starts like this: A guard drives to the basket, drops a bounce pass to a cutter, the cutter stops, pump-fakes, then side-passes to a weak side OPEN MAN layup. It's beautiful when the players buy into it. It has to be ingrained into the heads of the players to think of the team, rather themselves. We're not ISO-bashers, we're pro-teamplay enthusiast. It's a change of mind-set. It takes time. Leave the ISO for the broken plays/last second shots. Only when necessary.
WOW!!! GOOD POINT! That seems to be happening. We're passing, just to pass... Then, we're right back into an ISO situation. Passing should work with players MOVING WITHOUT the ball. Movement!!! Not, players standing still. Grrrrr......!!!
You are correct here. During the last game, there were too many times where francis and mobley would bring the ball up and shoot after 7 seconds. This was a problem because the offense isnt set and therefore nobody was underneath for an offensive rebound. Five 76ers players waited for the rebound. And there we were, running back to play defense...
btw: This is not the Dale Robertson quote in the Chronicle. Robertson quoted AI exactly as krosfyah as in his signature. http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/sports/bk/bkn/rox/1632892
hamachi, You need to form a club of ISO-bashers. It's fashionable to form cutely named clubs on cc.net these days.
so it's the iso-bashers vs. the iso-apologists -- aka the "play-with-yourself club." you know, forming a club means working with others. that requires too much effort. i'd rather just iso-bash on my own. i don't need any help.
I cannot believe how people just imply Rudy is stupid by saying ISO is a part of all offenses. or he is an apologist. Dude. Why label people who know that one on one is the heart and soul of exploiting mismatches and winning in the 4th Q of Playoff games as ISO Apologist. Have you never heard the adage that the "NBA is all about Mismatches"???? We are not apologists; we are historians. We love ball movement and we love ISO. The best teams have a mix. Many people say that Jordan didn't start winning until he got his teammates involved. Many other people say that Jordan didn't start winning until he learned that turnaround fadeaway. You know; the one Kobe can hit, too. That Jordan turnaround jumper was very much a part of the Bulls "Triangle" and it often had little to do with ball movement. I don't know why I bother splaining to some guys who don't understand that Bobby Knights Passing Game was invented for no shot clock. Since the shot clock, how many championships has he won??? Coach K is on record saying he turned his team into a 3 point shooting team to win their last title. Did Maryland have true motion or a Francis ball movement Flex? Further, John Calipari (and others) design their systems around the shot clock. They will run motion or a "5man Game" for a certain amount of ticks, and then at 10 seconds there is an agreement with the players to run a quick pick play to get the best player the ball for one on one. Now, NBA coaches only have the luxury of about 16 seconds of an offensive set. They run ball movement to try to get a mistake or a mismatch or simply really good position for one on one. Why do some of you guys talk a bunch of Theory. Watch the games. We are often working the ball to get Mobley a foot, or get Rice/Thomas great low post against a SF, or get MoT in his comfort zone...what is great is that occassionally the defense breaks down and we get a quick strike. that's the goal. the defensive break down while you are working the ball with the idea to at least get good position for a scorer.
Wow, you feel pretty strong...too bad your way off base. I'm not an apologist. I'm saying we aren't running ISO's like we were last season. You can count on one hand the # of times we've done a clearout in the pre-season. In terms of differentiating types of ISO, I'm just repeating what Rudy said on his weekly radio show. What we've done is taken too many ill-advised shots and not utilized our picks correctly, which gives the appearance of an ISO. But the plays almost always involve picks and an option to roll. Often the pass to the roller isn't made because the defense doesn't bite leaving a 1-on-1 which is okay if you have clear vision to the basket. Plus our rebounding has sucked.
Maybe this is part of the ISO situation we saw in the last two games... Straight from the horse's mouth...
Interesting. I've said it before on this BBS but this supports my claim that once Ming gets comfortable, that will all but eliminate the need to ISO our guards. It'll be more effective to pass inside to draw double teams and then kick out. Heard of that play before?
that pick is to get the defenders (sometimes doubles) off of Francis's ass, but isolation is only one resulting option of that pick. Steve can pass to Yao who rolled to the basket often. And you could also say that if MoT is doing the pick, and he pops out for a pass at the wing, then he is in isolation. That is not a clear-out isolation offense, though. The 2 Man game aspect of the offense (24-High, the high PnR) described by Yao is not 2-Shakes (the clear out). MoT receiving a pass on the wing from a pick n pop is no different than Malone getting the pass about 17 ft out. It is a pick n roll, not an isolation, yet it often results in an isolated Malone. Malone is deadly with a step to launch a simple 17'er...so is MoT...and so will Yao Ming. Those players can also take that pass and make their moves to the low block...just like Malone. What I don't like is when Francis doesn't use the pick to go to the middle of the court. This is when we are most looking like iso. I hate it when he takes the pick to the middle, then turns around and takes it to the outside...or sometimes he dribbles away from the pick. On any single play, it is not necessarily bad, because Steve often gets a decent unhindered midrange J from it, but in the long run, it makes his teammates guess what he wants to do, too often. His use of that pick just seems so random sometimes with no rhythm for anyone else to makes cuts off of it. Francis has to be more consistent with what he does to allow others to follow his lead.
ISO vs mismatches vs motion vs high P&R....what difference does it make? Rather than focus on definition, do this the next time you watch a Rockets game. After the ball crosses mid-court, count how many Rockets players touch the ball in a half-court set. Now, do the same thing for the opponents half-court set. I did this frequently during the last season and the vast majority of time only 2 Rockets players touched the ball before there was a shot. 3 touches was about the upper limit for the Rox but was about average for most opponents. Frequently the opponents got to 4 or 5 individual touches per half-court set. This was true for the last preseason game even though a ball hog like Iverson was part of the opposition. Even if I were to agree that the end result of a play or offensive set is an ISO mismatch (which I don't agree with), there is a vast difference in whether that ISO breaks out with 4 seconds on the clock or 8 seconds on the clock. Definitions be damned...the ball isn't being moved around enough. We are not going to create any mismatches when only 2 players touch the ball.
Clear the side! Let hamachi go 1 on 1 against heypartner. Exploit the mismatch. Oh no, krosfyah is coming over to double team. ricerocktet cuts to the basket, hamachi doesn't pass him the ball. GATOR is waiting on the weak side, but he is not moving.
Agreed. The thing I noticed is neither Cat nor Steve was hitting an open Yao on the roll (I didn't see last night). By the way Yellow Tail, why didn't you throw me the damn ball, I was wide open the weak side didn't move...
Gater, Did you ever bother to count how many passes Stockton made in the PnR's heyday when they were making it to the finals? Often just one. You're right. Bobby Knights Passing Game does not include isolation and neither does Pete Carril's Princeton Offense. But, this refusal to accept that other systems don't incorporate some one-on-one strategies is weird. If you would accept one truth in basketball it is easier to understand why some non-isolation systems still work hard to leverage one-on-one abilities, and that one truth is that getting great low post position easier said than done. What Rudy is saying is that an isolation is <b>a core option</b> in many systems (Karl Malone on the wing from a pick n fade), as well as <b>a constant threat</b> (the 3 man picking game on the strongside to get a low post scorer prime entry position, if not an open J or crease for a driver resulting from too much effort to deny the low post scorer his position), as well as <b>a result</b> of the defense taking other things away, Gary Payton or Jordan just backing it in if the defense covered the other options. It seems to be our theoretical definitions that are trying to dispute an NBA coach, and what many other coaches have written about.
