Has switching killed the notion of the “stopper”?

[Kblaze8855]

You know....Jordan stopper...Kobe stopper. Those guys like Bowen, Patterson, Gerald Wilkins, Tony Allen, Starks, and Battier who with varying degrees of success would make it their mission to stick to one guy an entire game or even series? Note for the record....all the “stoppers” eventually get lit up. You don’t fully stop guys good enough to have people set out to slow them down anyway. Not for long. Like here...Shane Battier doing work on Kobe:



https://youtu.be/x4aDM5d27_w



Many great moments. He pretty much became famous off getting a hand in Kobe’s face for a while(ignoring that he was a big deal at Duke). Kobe still put up 27 a game that series but Shane made him work.

Thats usually how it is. You don’t stop a godly talent like that....but making them look like maybe...a lesser god? Hades instead of Zeus? That’s worthy of respect.


For the most part today that is limited by switching. If you could get Tony Parker guarding Kobe by merely setting a screen you would do it every time. And many teams these days will let you do just that for long portions of a game. I’m not here to argue their reasons or if it’s better or worse defense at the moment...my question....


Who are the guys remaining with a stopper mentality who absolutely do not want to switch off if it’s up to them.


You have Pat Beverly. You put Marcus Smart on that list with him?


Can we come up with 10 guys who have the “Hes mine...for better or for worse” mentality?

The 90s Bulls at one point had like 4 people who would take a matchup personal like that at times. A great defender these days usually needs to be more versatile than locked in I’d say so again...this isn’t about which way is better. I just want the names that come to mind of current guys with that stopper mentality.

Ill take em no matter how obscure. I like to pay attention to such people. The young ones can escape your notice for a while.

[Shooter]

Dort
Klay
Siakam
Draymond
Tucker

Come to mind

[3ball]

Switching has existed since basketball was invented

I remember learning various switching schemes as part of top rated high school programs and also two division I college teams

The difference is that today's screen roll offenses require more switching than any other format - a switch is required virtually every time down the floor

That's the only difference.. guys don't have to create their own shot as much or pure score - they get a bevy of screen roll action to get them in the lane AUTOMATICALLY.. penetration is now built into the game.. it's no longer something you can stop.. you can only adjust the defense for automatic penetration by having rotating schemes that can meet penetrators at the rim (still mostly late though no matter what you do)

[Kblaze8855]

Switching has existed for a long time of course just like most aspects of the game increase and decrease in use depending on the era. The 3 has been in the nba for just over 40 years but it’s certainly never been used as it is now...much like switching defenses. And no doubt the two are related.

And I actually just thought about it....the 3 point era is now just barely longer than the pre 3 point era. Not that it was heavily used those first years and obviously not counting the ABA or other leagues using it long before that.

[tpols]

Shane Battier has one of the best TED talks I've ever seen. He's supremely intelligent.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOgNqSi17oQ

[tpols]

It's crazy... Shane Battier had better advanced metrics than guys like Carmelo. But he had no clout because he just did the dirty work.

[Kblaze8855]

Everyone talked about that when he was drafted. Like he wasn’t gonna be a star but off sheer intelligence and chemistry he was gonna be valuable. Always heard he might be in politics one day like Bill Bradley. They tried to get him to run for the senate when he retired but he didn’t want to yet.

[3ball]

Shane Battier has one of the best TED talks I've ever seen. He's supremely intelligent.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOgNqSi17oQ

He talks about how his low rebounding stats actually increased his TEAM'S rebounding percentage (because of his commitment to boxing out)...

This is similar to team assists... A guy that gets less personal assists might promote higher TEAM assists.. they might promote better ball movement by being an assist target themselves or not holding the ball long (like battier, who touted his low time of possession).

[tpols]

He talks about how his low rebounding stats actually increased his TEAM'S rebounding percentage (because of his commitment to boxing out)...

This is similar to team assists... A guy that gets less personal assists might promote higher TEAM assists.. they might promote better ball movement by being an assist target themselves or not holding the ball long (like battier, who touted his low time of possession).

Yup... he grades out way better on advanced metrics than volume stats. There are so many players in NBA history who got volume stats an a very inefficient rate but were still considered stars. And then guys like Battier and many others are just... tossed aside and considered role players. When they actually had better basketball impact than a lot of guys who sold millions of jerseys.

But I dont want to derail blaze's thread. My bad.

He's right... switching has killed the perennial "stopper". Because guys in the past used to relish in embarrassing a fella who challenged them, but today everybody looks for the weakest link to exploit.

[Kblaze8855]

There are a lot of players like that....but I’m not sure Battier is one for me for one big reason....

Handles. Generally those “Way better than the numbers” types on the wing can contribute in more ways than he can on offense. I’m talking Iggy, Michael Cooper, Doug Christie, and guys like that. Battier was certainly better than his raw numbers from a team helping standpoint but he was limited by his skills in ways a lot of those guys aren’t.

Granted....in today’s league? He’s a power forward his whole career so it’s a slightly different skill set I’d look for.

Looking at it that way?

Sure there are some cheap 19 ppg guys I might take him over given some thought. But it’s so easy for a skilled wing these days to utterly dominate a game it’s hard to take him over some of those.

A tough and smart knock down shooting tweener who could guard 85% of the nba would obviously have value....but go look at some of that shit Mitchell and Murray were doing these playoffs.

It’s their league now. The nba wanted it that way and got it.