Good, aggressive basketball vs. forcing the issue

[elementally morale]

Which is which?

Imagine you are a player that keeps shooting outside shots when you are 2 of 13 from the field. You miss another 3 shots in the 4th quarter. I guess that was forcing the issue. You make 2 of those shots and your team wins: it good, aggressive basketball, no matter what.
You are a player that keeps attacking the basket. You score but the whistle blows. The call is debatable. It is either a 3 point opportunity (and 1) or an offensive foul. This is the difference of good, aggressive basketball and forcing the issue.

I'm amazed why 'being aggressive' is the mantra all the time these days. It's not a combat sport. Sure, you are supposed to attack and score but if you play smart you don't have to be 'aggressive' whatever that means. You are being aggressive on defense and you foul out in the 3rd. That was a bit forcing the issue, am I right?


So what do you think is the main difference between good, aggressive basketball and forcing the issue? Other than the end result which cannot be known at the time the actual play took place.

[warriorfan]

if a player wins the game it will be said he kept being aggressive

if a player loses the game they will say he forced the issue


To be honest it all depends. There’s so many different variables. Is the player the type of guy who has had success doing it before? Is he attempting to play outside his ability? Are all other teammates failing to step up to the plate or is he icing people out? Is he getting decent looks while being aggressive or chucking awful shots early in the clock? Every circumstance is different. A lot of these are similar to how box scores can be deceiving. There is more to the game.

[Full Court]

When you're ice cold and going 2 for 13 from the field...and you keep on chucking, that's low IQ, losing basketball. You don't keep doing what's not working unless you're a one trick pony.

[elementally morale]

if a player wins the game it will be said he kept being aggressive

if a player loses the game they will say he forced the issue

The way I see it, too.

But why do you have to "be aggressive" in the first place? If it's just another term for fighting and trying to win it still doesn't sound that great. You are better off as a team if you play smart. What does being aggressive in a basketball game actually mean? Especially with the way calls are going today when everything is a foul. You are aggressive.. you foul out.

[elementally morale]

When you're ice cold and going 2 for 13 from the field...and you keep on chucking, that's low IQ, losing basketball. You don't keep doing what's not working unless you're a one trick pony.

Tatum did that in game 6 vs. the 76ers. I guess it was good, aggressive basketball and a great thing he believed in himself. Had he missed in the 4th the way he was missing the previous 3 quarters I think it would've been forcing the issue though.

[warriorfan]

The way I see it, too.

But why do you have to "be aggressive" in the first place? If it's just another term for fighting and trying to win it still doesn't sound that great. You are better off as a team if you play smart. What does being aggressive in a basketball game actually mean? Especially with the way calls are going today when everything is a foul. You are aggressive.. you foul out.

Ideally you want to play a smart and aggressive. To have the iq to recognize times to be more aggressive and times when to slow it down.

[ArbitraryWater]

its the difference of make vs. miss

in both cases one individual forces a shot.

[elementally morale]

Ideally you want to play a smart and aggressive. To have the iq to recognize times to be more aggressive and times when to slow it down.

There is another term for it: being decisive. Or keep attacking. Maybe even heat-check. Hustling for every rebound. On another note: if you get the steal it was great hustle. If you miss by an inch it was careless defense.

[ArbitraryWater]

There is another term for it: being decisive. Or keep attacking. Maybe even heat-check. Hustling for every rebound. On another note: if you get the steal it was great hustle. If you miss by an inch it was careless defense.


and its onto the player to measure it

[j3lademaster]

Being aggressive is doing what you can to get to your spots. Lebron missed a few bunnies tonight and even lost the ball on a clear dunk. That was good aggressive attacking. Taking 6 3’s though? That’s forcing the issue.

I remember one game where Curry took a stepback ~30 footer after AD switched onto him. My friend said he forced the shot since there was still clock left to get something better, but to me that’s something you live with. First of all, you’re Steph ****ing Curry. That’s not a bad shot, second of all you took AD away from the rim. You have added insurance of Warriors minus Curry should outrebound Lakers minus AD. If Poole takes that shot, then it’s a bad shot and he forced it.

[elementally morale]

Being aggressive is doing what you can to get to your spots. Lebron missed a few bunnies tonight and even lost the ball on a clear dunk. That was good aggressive attacking. Taking 6 3’s though? That’s forcing the issue.

This is actually a great example. :applause:

But how can you generalize this? Good, aggressive basketball if you 'force' something that you are historically good at and forcing the issue is taking a gamble with plays that usually don't go your way?
And what is a heat check? I usually feel like a heat check is forcing the issue. Unless it goes in, LOL.

[j3lademaster]

This is actually a great example. :applause:

But how can you generalize this? Good, aggressive basketball if you 'force' something that you are historically good at and forcing the issue is taking a gamble with plays that usually don't go your way?
And what is a heat check? I usually feel like a heat check is forcing the issue. Unless it goes in, LOL.No idea how to generalize this. They're all just terms coined by journalists and commentators without real definitions, you kinda just get your own feel and interpretations for what they mean after you watch enough games and hear this enough. Some commentators like saying "forced the shot" some like saying that the player "settled" for a bad shot. As long as you have an idea of what they must mean I think whatever else in between isn't too important.

As for heat check, to me that means, for example, a mediocre 3 point shooter like Aaron Gordon hits 3 3's in a row off of Jokic doubles in the paint, and uncharacteristically dribbles the ball down the court and takes a pull up 3 with virtually a full shot clock. Something along those lines.

[elementally morale]

No idea how to generalize this. They're all just terms coined by journalists and commentators without real definitions, you kinda just get your own feel and interpretations for what they mean after you watch enough games and hear this enough.

I've definitely heard a lot since the 80s when I started watching. Maybe my memory doesn't serve me right but as far as I can remember I didn't hear good aggressive basketball this much even when the Bad Boy Pistons played actual aggressive basketball. To me it seems like it started the last decade or so. BTW, Marc Jackson is hilarious when he says 'rebounding the basketball' or 'in the game of basketball' or 'in this basketball game'. Mama, there goes that man that was forcing the issue in this basketball game.

[3ba11]

In the long run, forcing the issue will work out better than holding back

There will be bad shooting nights but when a guy goes 13-39, defenses have to guard that - defenses expend tremendous energy to force those misses, so they have less capacity for offense and it's also harder to dictate pace with 1 guy being that aggressive - usually the guy taking the high volume is dictating pace.. Furthermore, that type of aggressiveness usually yields a massive edge on the offensive glass - teammates become accustomed to a high volume or aggressive shooter and anticipate rebounds better..

There are clear-cut examples where efficiency hunting results in less points in the long run, while aggression will yield more points in the long run.

Look at the 2014 Finals - the Heat had BY FAR the best efficiency of any Spurs' opponent, but they lost by the most.. The team that played the Spurs the best was the team that scored the most POINTS - passive efficiency-hunting didn't matter - aggression was more important.