no debate will ever be productive without an agreed upon definition of terms. how about we all agree on these definitions first? isolation: situation where offensive player attempts to beat his defender (via drive, post, etc.) originating from a stationary position. motion offense: generally speaking...an offense where all 5 players are interacting with each other through screens, cuts and passes with the objective of confusing the defense enough to get a man open. there, generally speaking, is no option #1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and requires almost all of the players to be nearly interchangeable to run at optimum efficiency. (verse's note: there are very, very few true "motion offenses" that are run anymore) 5 man offense: generally speaking...an offense where 3 or more people interact with each other with a particular purpose in mind - usually to direct the ball into a particular person's hands as option #1. (eg.: the triangle) any complaints? if not, start with these and there'll be less confusion and argumentation over semantics...
verse, in your 3 definitions, two of them you call "an offense," and one you call "a situation." Rudy's point is that the "situation" of isolation is part of many "offenses" .... as initial attacks (2 Shakes), core options (Pick n Fade, Secondary Breaks), constant threats helping other options, resulting situations when everything else is denied, and safety valves for a busted play/loose ball.
Except for a year or two when we had a healthy frisky Barkley, with Rudy T teams, rebounding was *not* the team strength. Too many people hanging around at the 3 pt line. Dave
After last year's rule change, the "clear one side" ISO offense wouldn't work anymore, and I doubt that any team would still use it. The defense would simply "zone" down in the middle to take away the driving possibility for the isolated scorer. Just my 2.
Easy, so your definition is Isolation is a specific "offense" as well as a "situation." imo, perimeter spacing offenses can still succeed against zones. From the video I've seen of Boki's championship team and from a lot of what Dallas does there still remains a very successful means to beat zones with one on one penetration. With 5 good to great shooters you can spread them around the perimeter (with the occassional low post presence) and create spacing problems for the defense that result in the zone flattening. Flattening zones with shooters to open lanes is a commone strategy. The zone can't succeed by staying in it box when you can hit shots over it or in its 15-18' creases. Not everyone does a weave offense like Argentina. You can confuse a zone with picks and passing or bring it out of its box then penetrate it. Once you flatten it, Finley, Nash and Nitwitz can dribble-penetrate and kick, pass, pass, pass, open shot. Their offense is not sophisticated like the Kings or the Nets. There is more than one approach to beating a zone, and creating spacing for one on one penetration does exist. Do you insist that ISOs only happen from the wing and that Dallas does not ISO?
yeah...I can certainly agree with your wording. Just thought that it is important to reinforce your point about "situation" versus "offense." Seems that the thread is drifting to folks talking about our "perimeter wing isolation offense," or saying Rudy is wrong or trying to apologize for isolations. imo, Rudy is explaining why we should expect to see situational isolations as an actual part, or in addition to, a 5-man game. Some of the comments seem offended by Rudy's comment and others seem to want to say that he is wrong if we define ISOs a certain way. It is not a place for us to define what ISO is to call Rudy right or wrong based on that; rather, it is our chore to learn his definition...ie, the definition of NBA coaches, and to understand what these coaches mean when they say that many offenses incorporate isolation.
No, when I said "clear one side" ISO, I didn't mean a "situation." I meant a specific offense that were used quite a lot in the 90s. You know what I am talking about: the kind of offense that had 4 players standing on one side of the court. The defensive players had to follow their men because of the rule requirement, leaving the isolated player (usually the most dominating guy) playing one on one on the other side of the court. I understand what you and others say about ISO as a situation. But the kind of ISO I am describing is clearly a designed offensive scheme to exploit the one on one skill of a star player. The rule change was to a large extent geared toward eliminating this kind of boring basketball. And it is this kind of offensive scheme the "ISO bashers" loathe. My point was that we won't see this kind of ISO very much under the new rule.
Rudy's comments certainly seem valid about how isolations are used, and what the Rockets are trying to do, and especially about what they have failed to do. I don't think it will ever stop all the complaining about it on these boards though.
HP - From this, should I conclude that when the Rockets and Jazz play this season that the Rockets will have more half-court touches? I am doubtful. Don't know about Stockton's hayday, but I can tell you this with certainty - the Utah Jazz lead the NBA in the % of assists to made FG's last season. Whatever their offense, they must be getting players in position for a good shot.
I don't think that by criticizing our offense there's an implication that Rudy is stupid. We all know he's definitely not, and that he's one of the best coaches in the game. Just to be clear, I'm not one of those fire-Rudy guys, and I'll admit that my interest in the Rockets will unfortunately have to fall off somewhat whenever he stops coaching them. There's no doubt that his simplification of the offense back in the good-old days let us exploit the one-on-one talents of Hakeem, resulting in two championships. But that doesn't mean our offense of the last few years should be immune from criticism. And I'm definitely not exclusively targeting Rudy with these complaints -- it's also the players, who absolutely are vulnerable to criticism. Sorry, I didn't intend the label "ISO apologist" to be derogatory or reductionist. It was just convenient to group those who don't seem to accept any criticism of our offense. Maybe I should have used the term "Stagnant-Rockets-Offense Apologist", rather than "ISO Apologist." I'm not just complaining about ISOs, or even just about the system. I'm also complaining about how the players execute the system, ISO-centric or not. Of course, any basketball fan has to appreciate it when a superstar can go one-on-one, take advantage of mismatches, use a signature go-to move, and/or creatively freelance. And sure, the best teams do have a mix -- but come on, we are not one of the best teams, and our mix seems more like 95/5 than 50/50. (You may not accept such a subjective breakdown, but you can't deny that our mix is less balanced and less effective than the good teams). A little more variety throughout the game and season can only improve the effectiveness of going one-on-one at crunch time, make the other team work harder for the rest of the game, and make the games more interesting to watch. I'm not necessarily pushing for exclusively using a passing game, or a true motion offense, or a 5-man game, or the triangle, or whatever. I'm pushing for more variety in our offensive sets. I'm pushing for less selfish play. I'm pushing for a bigger commitment from the players to execute well. I'm complaining about our boring brand of basketball and our lack of consistent success. And I'm complaining about how these criticisms are always dismissed by some people. Yes, motion-oriented sets have their shortcomings, and ISO's have their strengths. I dig X's and O's, but I'm obviously no expert. Still, I don't think you need to be a guru to have the right to complain and criticize. You shouldn't have to work so hard to find things to appreciate in our offense. And our guys shouldn't have to work so hard to score. Come on, it's hard to deny that our offensive sets too often stagnate, and/or there's too much selfish play, and many times is unbearably painful to watch. Hopefully, things really are changing for the better this year -- but you can't blame some of us for being skeptical after so many promises/excuses. The rationalizations posted about ISOs only fuel the skepticisms. I think my main intent with this extended b**** session was not just to vent frustration, but to hope that the team really does stick with a new system. Even if it's difficult at first, even if things break down, and even if some early games are sacrificed, I hope our play doesn't degenerate back into the boring ineffective style we've become known for.
Hamachi, I don't understand what you are trying to argue. imo, you are off topic. The topic seemed to be was whether ISO is part of most offenses as Rudy said on 610. Is it part of most offenses or not? Is Rudy wrong or not? And you must start with Rudy's definition. He never said 2-Shakes (Rudy's play call for our much-maligned, high wing iso for a guard) is the only ISO that there is in the NBA.
Heypartner, I don't think I'm off-topic, or "way off base," as described by krosfyah earlier. I think you've completely missed the point of my initial post -- and which I thought I subsequently clarified. I'm not necessarily making any specific argument. I'm venting frustration about the general stagnation/ineffectiveness of our offense, and how there's always some rationalization made by the apologists. How can you not understand this? I think your comment just adds another to my list of frustrations -- the apologists obsession with minutiae, instead of the big picture. I could give a flying f*** about the exact definition of an ISO. This seems to be another apologist tactic: quibbling over petty semantics, distracting from the key issue. So you know what: Rudy is absolutely right in his definition of the ISO. But so what. Our offense is still boring and inept. Last night seems to confirm we're stuck in the same old rut -- but I'll reserve judgement until after a few more games. (Luckily, I don't have to buy League Pass until 11/5 -- if we aren't showing any signs of breaking away from our old ways, I probably won't spring for it). Anyway, our stagnant offense is already being discussed, and has been discussed, in countless other threads. I thought I was giving a thoughtful take from another angle, instead of just futilely belaboring the same old crap, and starting yet another inane "too much dribbling, too little passing, too little movement, too much franchise/cat, too much sucking, too much hating" flame war. But I guess I was mistaken. Back to lurking mode... One more thing -- please don't take all this too personally. I still greatly respect and appreciate your playbook expertise and breakdowns of the X's and O's -- even if I disagree with some of it. I'm thankful that the forum has a resident playbook geek.
