Why is going small > going big?

[iamgine]

It seems the notion was when the other team goes small ball, the opponent need to match it. But why does the opponent not go the other way; going big?

i.e when GSW plays Draymond Green at center, why not counter with...say playing Mason Plumlee and Brook Lopez together.

[Im so nba'd out]

It seems the notion was when the other team goes small ball, the opponent need to match it. But why does the opponent not go the other way; going big?

i.e when GSW plays Draymond Green at center, why not counter with...say playing Mason Plumlee and Brook Lopez together.
Mason plumlee wont score on whoever is guarding him draymon would.if we had more skilled big men in the league they would go big but we dont.

[dubeta]

LeBron was the only player to successfully implement small ball

No one else ever won a championship with small ball.

[Im Still Ballin]

I'm not sure if you can make that statement but if one things for sure players are a lot better shooters today than in previous eras

[coin24]

LeBron has small balls

No one else ever was an alpha with small balls.


:applause:

[CavaliersFTW]

LeBron was the only player to successfully implement small ball

No one else ever won a championship with small ball.
Rick Barry.

[CavaliersFTW]

It seems the notion was when the other team goes small ball, the opponent need to match it. But why does the opponent not go the other way; going big?

i.e when GSW plays Draymond Green at center, why not counter with...say playing Mason Plumlee and Brook Lopez together.
Teams do do big line ups, when they have the option.

This is an old example, but I just highlighted the game for my YT channel so it's fresh in my mind - in 1963 G6 Finals one stretch of the game was played with 6-11 Wiley at center and 6-11 Ellis at forward (not normal, normally they used 6-9 LaRusso at that spot) and they slid LaRusso to the "small" forward spot and put Elgin Baylor, normally the Lakers small forward, as a guard along with Jerry West to give Baylor, who had a hot hand, a chance to hit from outside and to offer him so relief crashing boards against Bill Russell and Satch Sanders. It actually worked they went on a big run that Boston had to figure out a new plan to counter.

I think any change in lineup, whether going big or small, can be effective in throwing a wrench in the other teams defensive strategy. Whether a coach decides to go big or small I don't know, maybe an attempt to exploit match ups but I don't think there's a science too it. I think most teams have to go "small" more often than "big" because they often probably regularly field a "big" line up and don't have much/any flexibility to go any bigger. The easier direction to go is probably smaller.

[Nets fan 93]

Mason plumlee wont score on whoever is guarding him draymon would.if we had more skilled big men in the league they would go big but we dont.
This

[AintNoSunshine]

Because bigs today can't play for sht, the only thing they're good for is to get a rebound and hand it over to the guards.

[L.Kizzle]

Because it's a week era for bigs. Wouldn't happen to the 90s Knicks.

[Siemens]

:applause:

:oldlol:

[Pushxx]

Because rules favor perimeter play.

Too many things down-low are offensive fouls. Plus ballhandlers are able to dismiss defenders more easily lately with their off-arm so driving and kicking is even more-so one of the best plays in basketball.

[navy]

It seems the notion was when the other team goes small ball, the opponent need to match it. But why does the opponent not go the other way; going big?

i.e when GSW plays Draymond Green at center, why not counter with...say playing Mason Plumlee and Brook Lopez together.


Because your gonna have your bigs guarding the perimeter in which lots of threes will be shot . Most teams dont have good enough inside presence scorers to match small ball with big lineups.

[T_L_P]

Going small is pretty overrated imo, even in today's perimeter-oriented game.

Teams are still better off when they roll with two bigs. :confusedshrug:

[keep-itreal]

That's because most centers and power forwards today are offensively inept.

I don't understand how these atheletic seven footers can play their whole career is still not know how to post up. What do they even do in practice??? :roll:

[SCdac]

Having bigs who can play like traditional bigs but also stretch the defense is helpful in these kinda scenarios where small ball lineups are popping up. Part of the reason Diaw is helpful to the Spurs is that he posts up his man really often (almost every opportunity where he can exploit a mismatch) and at the same rate he makes about 1 three a game (attempts 2+ a game). Tough to guard all things considered (lead all scorers last night in Spurs vs. Mavs game). Agreed with TLP though, going big is where it's at, traditional PF and C. Spurs were best the last couple seasons with Duncan at PF and Tiago at C, and same for most of the 2000's. The Heat got better as Lebron's post game improved after the 2011 collapse and around 2006 they were running with Shaq + Udonis Haslem. Most championship lineups have had a traditional big man lineup. Even Dirk by the time he won a championship toned down his 3-pt attempts big time while improving his post game, compared to his younger self.

[navy]

Going small is pretty overrated imo, even in today's perimeter-oriented game.

Teams are still better off when they roll with two bigs. :confusedshrug:
This isnt even true for the Spurs. Diaw and Duncan is better than Splitter and Duncan, especially in the playoffs.

[bizil]

Because it's a week era for bigs. Wouldn't happen to the 90s Knicks.

I agree! When it comes to dominant centers, this is one of the weakest eras EVER! So it gives teams the luxury to go small. Back in the day, u hardly saw Karl Malone playing center. And other than Bird, most of the other great SF's hardly played any PF. The reason why is because the league was much bigger and much more physical. And U HAD to play man to man defense. If u couldn't stop a guy, u had to double team.

So of course in this era u can go small a lot more often. U don't have to pay the same defensive price as you would have in the 80's and 90's. But with that said, usually the teams that have very good to great size win rings. Even though Miami won two rings, they were beaten by twice in the Finals bigger teams. The two biggest problems the Heat had were Wade's durability and size.

[bizil]

Having bigs who can play like traditional bigs but also stretch the defense is helpful in these kinda scenarios where small ball lineups are popping up. Part of the reason Diaw is helpful to the Spurs is that he posts up his man really often (almost every opportunity where he can exploit a mismatch) and at the same rate he makes about 1 three a game (attempts 2+ a game). Tough to guard all things considered (lead all scorers last night in Spurs vs. Mavs game). Agreed with TLP though, going big is where it's at, traditional PF and C. Spurs were best the last couple seasons with Duncan at PF and Tiago at C, and same for most of the 2000's. The Heat got better as Lebron's post game improved after the 2011 collapse and around 2006 they were running with Shaq + Udonis Haslem. Most championship lineups have had a traditional big man lineup. Even Dirk by the time he won a championship toned down his 3-pt attempts big time while improving his post game, compared to his younger self.

Well said! Having bigs who can do both is huge when it comes to small ball. And when u look historically, most title teams have the traditional big man lineup. Those teams like Run TMC back in the day were fun to watch and won a lot of games. But they needed more useful size up front to win a ring. I've heard Hardaway say himself they needed more size to win rings.

[T_L_P]

This isnt even true for the Spurs. Diaw and Duncan is better than Splitter and Duncan, especially in the playoffs.

Eh, not really. Our best five man lineup had both Duncan and Splitter in it. We had better four and three man units involving Duncan and Splitter than we did with Duncan and Diaw also.

The whole "Duncan and Splitter can't play together" thing got totally overblown last postseason. We were still at our best with those two in the lineup, because the defense was so overwhelmingly dominant. Even using the eye-test, I'd much rather have a Duncan/Splitter frontcourt than any of the others we have (though Duncan/Diaw is still very strong).

Having two bigs is still the way to go imo. Besides, it's not like a Diaw-Duncan froncourt pairing is going small anyway; it's just not going big, if that makes sense?

[navy]

Eh, not really. Our best five man lineup had both Duncan and Splitter in it. We had better four and three man units involving Duncan and Splitter than we did with Duncan and Diaw also.

The whole "Duncan and Splitter can't play together" thing got totally overblown last postseason. We were still at our best with those two in the lineup, because the defense was so overwhelmingly dominant. Even using the eye-test, I'd much rather have a Duncan/Splitter frontcourt than any of the others we have (though Duncan/Diaw is still very strong).

Having two bigs is still the way to go imo. Besides, it's not like a Diaw-Duncan froncourt pairing is going small anyway; it's just not going big, if that makes sense?
Nope. I didnt say they couldnt play together, but you cant deny Boris Diaw changes the team for the better in the playoffs. You saw it vs OKC and Miami. Splitter and Duncan together just isnt as effective. Splitter had to defend Dirk and LMA, so he had a role earlier. Like he would vs the Grizzlies as well or something.

In fact, Popovich started Matt fvcking Bonner over Splitter in the Thunder series.

[iamgine]

Seems relevant

[navy]

the bigs today arent talented enough offensively to punish small teams

[Fallen Angel]

That's because most centers and power forwards today are offensively inept.

I don't understand how these atheletic seven footers can play their whole career is still not know how to post up. What do they even do in practice??? :roll:
Mozgov had 28/10 and his team got torched in the 4thQ.

Your statement is irrelevant

[ClipperRevival]

First time in history where a team with a 6'7" C and a lineup of primarily 6'7" or shorter guys won a title. Unprecedented and an indication of how times have changed.

[Fallen Angel]

First time in history where a team with a 6'7" C and a lineup of primarily 6'7" or shorter guys won a title. Unprecedented and an indication of how times have changed.
Pace, Space, Shooting, Passing. They have all the tools to compete with any great all-time team.

They play as a team on both sides of the ball until it comes time to ride the hot man in crunch time.

Them playing a 6'7" C is an indication on how their opponents play on offense and where their strengths and weaknesses are.

[AirFederer]

Is it safe to say LeBron went small in game 4?

[rmt]

Nope. I didnt say they couldnt play together, but you cant deny Boris Diaw changes the team for the better in the playoffs. You saw it vs OKC and Miami. Splitter and Duncan together just isnt as effective. Splitter had to defend Dirk and LMA, so he had a role earlier. Like he would vs the Grizzlies as well or something.

In fact, Popovich started Matt fvcking Bonner over Splitter in the Thunder series.

Depends on the teams - against teams with good bigs - LAC and MEM - Splitter is needed - big reason why SAS lost (Splitter was injured early). Against others (eg. Lebron's MIA) - Splitter is an afterthought except to give Duncan rest. But I agree with TLP - Spurs are at their best with Duncan/Splitter - the defense is excellent.

[FKAri]

the bigs today arent talented enough offensively to punish small teams

Bigs from the past simply would not perform as well in today's league. Smalls from the present also wouldn't perform well in the past league. It goes both ways and its because of the rule changes.

[LeFraud James]

Is it safe to say LeBron went small?

Give him a break, it was probably just cold inside Oracle. :oldlol:

[bballnoob1192]

it's just how well the team plays with their lineup that forces the other team to adjust. the GSW already showed they can beat cavs with mozgov going off for career highs. The better team always forces the adjustment IMO. remember how the lakers forced teams to start going for bigmen to counter Gasol/odom/bynum? They couldn't run a small team against the lakers cuz the lakers bigs were great at clogging the lanes. The GSW goes small cuz almost everyone on their team can hit a three at a decent to great percentage, so teams have to go small to compete against them. Clogging the lane with bigs does you no favor against the warriors.

[redboy]

going big works much better when you have a big that can post up and take advantage of their size. many of today's nba's centers don't really have that ability

[StephHamann]

Ask Madonna Pippen and Jordan

[Timmy D for MVP]

You have to have the right personnel, and since it's a copycat situation everyone is rushing to get smaller and more flexible. You need two guys who can punish the small lineup and there aren't too many teams out there who carry two guys who are valuable enough to avoid the trend.

[SCdac]

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y147/adrumaddict/1bc928f9-c1ae-418e-97be-53731f4f0459.jpg

Imo, it's a combo of strategic basketball in the moment + using the personnel available (less elite post players, more shooters nowadays) + adapting to general trends and rule changes in the NBA game. As mentioned, sometimes it just works to replace a defender like Splitter with a more versatile offensive player in Diaw, or in Golden State and Phoenix the past 10 years we've seen alot of small ball, but barring major injuries to AS's/Super Stars and changes to the league I think a 'traditional lineup' is still the most effective. Even Dirk by the time he won a championship was taking much less three's than his Nellie days and posting up in the midrange with more confidence and experience. But, on the other hand, one could make an argument that the big man/post up positions are dying imo

[SpanishACB]

It seems the notion was when the other team goes small ball, the opponent need to match it. But why does the opponent not go the other way; going big?

i.e when GSW plays Draymond Green at center, why not counter with...say playing Mason Plumlee and Brook Lopez together.

because outfield players get many more touches than interior players

if you have smart outfield players capable of passing the ball to the post (a forgotten skill), and skilled bigs, good ball movement to force advantageous matchups, you should be able to score 2 on crazy percentages vs small ball, but they're not even trying.