Posted by tkf:

Posted by codeunknown:

Posted by martin:

Posted by codeunknown:

Posted by Bippity10:

I think the Bulls do need a post player. I think it will be work for them to get that player. But why does that mean their future is in trouble? I'm not sure where that logic comes from.

In reality I could care less aobut the Bulls and where they stand. They are in good shape but whether they are or not has nothing to do with our situation. I think fans just use their situation to make themselves feel better or worse about our team. It's irrelevant. But some fans don't mind sounding silly anyway.

Nixluva, it's fine to feel good about your team. We have youth. It could mature, but why waste your time comparing us to the Bulls. Why downplay their future? If we looked like them right now, you'd be saying we were a player away from a title and reveling in it. why not just be objective and look at the situations separately. Why sound so silly? They've done a good job, now after 7 years of time wasting, maybe we can start doing a good job as well.

Bip, since you are a coach, I'd be interested in knowing why you think the Bulls need to have a traditional post player. In my opinion, their offensive inconsistency is a result of the fact that neither Hinrich and Gordon are really dominant penetrators yet - the poor 3 point shooting at the 4 and 5 worsens the congestion in the paint. The pick and roll is guarded relatively easily as well because the opposing 4 is free to trap the guards - knowing well that Ben and Tyrus can't make plays from 15 feet out. Without 4s or 5s that hit from the perimeter, the defense almost always has their bigs set in the paint - making both drives and off-the-ball cuts more difficult.

A post-up player opens up the perimeter, gets opposing bigs in foul touble, helps with offensive rebounding etc. And that is one potential solution. But, a pick and roll demon, so to speak, offers many of the same advantages - open shots as a result of the screen or trap, mismatch creation and lanes to the basket with ensuing fouls, and offensive rebounding by sequestering the opposing big on the perimeter. Moreover, while the value of a post-up big man is limited to plays run through him, a shooting big man helps to space the floor for a variety of plays. Pick and rolls also require less set-up time than post-ups - in other words, the play is available later in the shot clock. So, to me, either type of player solves a significant part of the Bull's offensive struggles.

And Nixluva, a defensively incompetent post-up player like Curry isn't solving either teams problems.

I am not sure they need a traditional post player who is completely dominant, but they need one who is not half bad.

I am trying to think of the last championship team that did NOT have a fairly decent post player and I can't.

I think it has to do with being a more balanced team than anything.

Just because many teams have done it with a post-up player doesn't it mean its the only way or even the best way to win. I know that may not be what you're suggesting. To me, however, thats the crux of the matter - that a post-up player is merely a piece, and not an essential piece, of a championship team.

In my opinion, regardless of what you think of Rasheed's ability, Detroit now rarely runs a low post offense. They use Chris in the high post or Wallace at the arc. When they misfire on offense for stretches, ironically, they rely on the pick and roll with Chauncey and Rasheed. The Suns, who also are contenders, utilize Amare almost exclusively on the pick and roll or on a face-up 15 feet out.

I agree that balance is part of the advantage of having a post-up player. Just as having a penetrating guard or a 3pt shooting center or a high-post passing power-forward add to the balance of a team. Each dimension strains the opposing defense further. From that grab bag of options, there are a number of succesful combinations depending on the abilities of your players. But none, including post-up play, are essential.

just read that statement. The fact that many teams have won with a traditional post up big, shows you that it does work, more often than not, so although it might not be the only way to win( see Jordan) but it has been the most successful it seems. So why would you want to try and buck the trend? one that has proven true over time?

It doesn't show that. Think about it. Its tough to make a causal empirical argument using cross-sectional data. Especially when you have other contradictory cross-sectional data, including the vast number of teams with good post-up players that don't make the playoffs.

Duncan, Shaq, Olajuwon and Jordan are among the best players ever. Their teams won because those players were the best. Post-up players or not. Jordan won 6 times without a post-up big against the likes of Kemp, Malone, Ewing and Shaq.

Its not about bucking the trend - its about understanding the dynamics of the game. If a post-up player falls into the Bulls' hands, great. If not, there are other options that may be just as good, maybe better.

Posted by martin:

Posted by tkf:

Posted by codeunknown:

Posted by martin:

Posted by codeunknown:

Posted by Bippity10:

I think the Bulls do need a post player. I think it will be work for them to get that player. But why does that mean their future is in trouble? I'm not sure where that logic comes from.

In reality I could care less aobut the Bulls and where they stand. They are in good shape but whether they are or not has nothing to do with our situation. I think fans just use their situation to make themselves feel better or worse about our team. It's irrelevant. But some fans don't mind sounding silly anyway.

Nixluva, it's fine to feel good about your team. We have youth. It could mature, but why waste your time comparing us to the Bulls. Why downplay their future? If we looked like them right now, you'd be saying we were a player away from a title and reveling in it. why not just be objective and look at the situations separately. Why sound so silly? They've done a good job, now after 7 years of time wasting, maybe we can start doing a good job as well.

Bip, since you are a coach, I'd be interested in knowing why you think the Bulls need to have a traditional post player. In my opinion, their offensive inconsistency is a result of the fact that neither Hinrich and Gordon are really dominant penetrators yet - the poor 3 point shooting at the 4 and 5 worsens the congestion in the paint. The pick and roll is guarded relatively easily as well because the opposing 4 is free to trap the guards - knowing well that Ben and Tyrus can't make plays from 15 feet out. Without 4s or 5s that hit from the perimeter, the defense almost always has their bigs set in the paint - making both drives and off-the-ball cuts more difficult.

A post-up player opens up the perimeter, gets opposing bigs in foul touble, helps with offensive rebounding etc. And that is one potential solution. But, a pick and roll demon, so to speak, offers many of the same advantages - open shots as a result of the screen or trap, mismatch creation and lanes to the basket with ensuing fouls, and offensive rebounding by sequestering the opposing big on the perimeter. Moreover, while the value of a post-up big man is limited to plays run through him, a shooting big man helps to space the floor for a variety of plays. Pick and rolls also require less set-up time than post-ups - in other words, the play is available later in the shot clock. So, to me, either type of player solves a significant part of the Bull's offensive struggles.

And Nixluva, a defensively incompetent post-up player like Curry isn't solving either teams problems.

I am not sure they need a traditional post player who is completely dominant, but they need one who is not half bad.

I am trying to think of the last championship team that did NOT have a fairly decent post player and I can't.

I think it has to do with being a more balanced team than anything.

Just because many teams have done it with a post-up player doesn't it mean its the only way or even the best way to win. I know that may not be what you're suggesting. To me, however, thats the crux of the matter - that a post-up player is merely a piece, and not an essential piece, of a championship team.

In my opinion, regardless of what you think of Rasheed's ability, Detroit now rarely runs a low post offense. They use Chris in the high post or Wallace at the arc. When they misfire on offense for stretches, ironically, they rely on the pick and roll with Chauncey and Rasheed. The Suns, who also are contenders, utilize Amare almost exclusively on the pick and roll or on a face-up 15 feet out.

I agree that balance is part of the advantage of having a post-up player. Just as having a penetrating guard or a 3pt shooting center or a high-post passing power-forward add to the balance of a team. Each dimension strains the opposing defense further. From that grab bag of options, there are a number of succesful combinations depending on the abilities of your players. But none, including post-up play, are essential.

just read that statement. The fact that many teams have won with a traditional post up big, shows you that it does work, more often than not, so although it might not be the only way to win( see Jordan) but it has been the most successful it seems. So why would you want to try and buck the trend? one that has proven true over time?

Jordan and Longely were pretty good post players. I would say that they qualify.

I agree with you to an extent, Martin. I'm not sure how great of a post player Longley was, but he could shoot down there for sure. Still, I'd claim the Bulls would have won even if they played a manakin at center.

Posted by codeunknown:

Posted by martin:

Posted by tkf:

Posted by codeunknown:

Posted by martin:

Posted by codeunknown:

Posted by Bippity10:

I think the Bulls do need a post player. I think it will be work for them to get that player. But why does that mean their future is in trouble? I'm not sure where that logic comes from.

In reality I could care less aobut the Bulls and where they stand. They are in good shape but whether they are or not has nothing to do with our situation. I think fans just use their situation to make themselves feel better or worse about our team. It's irrelevant. But some fans don't mind sounding silly anyway.

Nixluva, it's fine to feel good about your team. We have youth. It could mature, but why waste your time comparing us to the Bulls. Why downplay their future? If we looked like them right now, you'd be saying we were a player away from a title and reveling in it. why not just be objective and look at the situations separately. Why sound so silly? They've done a good job, now after 7 years of time wasting, maybe we can start doing a good job as well.

Bip, since you are a coach, I'd be interested in knowing why you think the Bulls need to have a traditional post player. In my opinion, their offensive inconsistency is a result of the fact that neither Hinrich and Gordon are really dominant penetrators yet - the poor 3 point shooting at the 4 and 5 worsens the congestion in the paint. The pick and roll is guarded relatively easily as well because the opposing 4 is free to trap the guards - knowing well that Ben and Tyrus can't make plays from 15 feet out. Without 4s or 5s that hit from the perimeter, the defense almost always has their bigs set in the paint - making both drives and off-the-ball cuts more difficult.

A post-up player opens up the perimeter, gets opposing bigs in foul touble, helps with offensive rebounding etc. And that is one potential solution. But, a pick and roll demon, so to speak, offers many of the same advantages - open shots as a result of the screen or trap, mismatch creation and lanes to the basket with ensuing fouls, and offensive rebounding by sequestering the opposing big on the perimeter. Moreover, while the value of a post-up big man is limited to plays run through him, a shooting big man helps to space the floor for a variety of plays. Pick and rolls also require less set-up time than post-ups - in other words, the play is available later in the shot clock. So, to me, either type of player solves a significant part of the Bull's offensive struggles.

And Nixluva, a defensively incompetent post-up player like Curry isn't solving either teams problems.

I am not sure they need a traditional post player who is completely dominant, but they need one who is not half bad.

I am trying to think of the last championship team that did NOT have a fairly decent post player and I can't.

I think it has to do with being a more balanced team than anything.

Just because many teams have done it with a post-up player doesn't it mean its the only way or even the best way to win. I know that may not be what you're suggesting. To me, however, thats the crux of the matter - that a post-up player is merely a piece, and not an essential piece, of a championship team.

In my opinion, regardless of what you think of Rasheed's ability, Detroit now rarely runs a low post offense. They use Chris in the high post or Wallace at the arc. When they misfire on offense for stretches, ironically, they rely on the pick and roll with Chauncey and Rasheed. The Suns, who also are contenders, utilize Amare almost exclusively on the pick and roll or on a face-up 15 feet out.

I agree that balance is part of the advantage of having a post-up player. Just as having a penetrating guard or a 3pt shooting center or a high-post passing power-forward add to the balance of a team. Each dimension strains the opposing defense further. From that grab bag of options, there are a number of succesful combinations depending on the abilities of your players. But none, including post-up play, are essential.

just read that statement. The fact that many teams have won with a traditional post up big, shows you that it does work, more often than not, so although it might not be the only way to win( see Jordan) but it has been the most successful it seems. So why would you want to try and buck the trend? one that has proven true over time?

Jordan and Longely were pretty good post players. I would say that they qualify.

I agree with you to an extent, Martin. I'm not sure how great of a post player Longley was, but he could shoot down there for sure. Still, I'd claim the Bulls would have won even if they played a manakin at center.

don't agree. Luc was SOLID for then and Cartwright before that was huge. Jordan was a post player in the last wins. That's solid.

Posted by martin:

Posted by codeunknown:

Posted by martin:


don't agree. Luc was SOLID for then and Cartwright before that was huge. Jordan was a post player in the last wins. That's solid.

Well I disagree with you - because the fact remains that they beat teams who ran more post-ups with better post-up players. But, again, this particular example is a tiny portion of the larger argument. If you think that post-up offense is necessary to win a championship, you believe, on a fundamental level, that post-up play helps maximizes points scored. A priori, however, I previously described how a pick and roll/pop big man achieves many of the same ends in a similar team construct.

Talking about post-up play as a binary variable is fool-hardy because there really is a continuum of talent in that style and a continuum of post-up usage rate for each team. Ignoring that variability to generically state that championship teams have always had a "post-up player" isn't, to me, a significant conclusion. It is especially insignificant when you consider that a large proportion of the league fits the description of "having a post-up player" and the championship team is likely to have a "post-up player" through mere chance. So, only looking at championship teams restricts you to retrospective and cross-sectional data of a limited sample size WITH NO CONTROLS - where meaningless associations and confounders take over.

For those of you that aren't big on experiments and statistics, I'll leave you with some anecdotal evidence. Jermaine O Neal, Elton Brand, Kevin Garnett, Eddy Curry, Pau Gasol, Zach Randolph, Al Jefferson and Emeka Okafor were fishing during the playoffs.

I think you are taking it too far.

All I was suggesting is that a team must have a balanced attach, of which a decent post player must be there to fill out that balance, whether they exclusively rely on the post precence is NOT the key to my statement. Post play to maximize points scored was not what I was suggesting at all.

There is a reason PHO went out and got KT, he filled their balance in post defense.

It is especially insignificant when you consider that a large proportion of the league fits the description of "having a post-up player" and the championship team is likely to have a "post-up player" through mere chance.

Just because a large proportion of the league fits this description and championship teams also have it does NOT diminish my suggestion that championship team use as one of their weapons a post-up player. I am still trying to think of a team who has won a championship without a post player and I can't find one. Wasn't the knock on Dallas, Net a few years ago that they couldn't finish because of lack of post attach?

BTW, which team as won with a pick-and-roll combo killer?

Posted by martin:

Posted by codeunknown:



Having a balanced offensive attack is only useful because, through extra offensive threats, it allows either those plays or alternative plays to become more effective. In other words, because they increase the ability to score. If thats not what you were suggesting by balance, I'm not sure why "post-up balance" would be helpful. Wouldn't it be useful only in that it helped maximize scoring, even if only through the bluff of a post-up threat?

I think I may have misunderstood and we are agreeing on the same thing (I thought you were emphasising that exclusive post-play maximizes point potention... all we had to do is look at the Knicks this year).

The fact that the rest of the league fits the description of "having a post-up player" ABSOLUTELY diminishes your claim that "championship teams use post-up weapons," Martin. Because a more accurate statement is that almost every team uses a post-up threat. And what we are interested in are the unique characteristics of championship teams - not generic descriptions like "championship teams have 5 players" or "champioship teams call timeouts in the last 2 minutes of the game." Those descriptions apply to all teams. They don't account for the difference between championship and lottery teams.

In terms of pick and roll teams that have been successful recently, I'd call the Jazz, Spurs and Detroit largely pick and roll teams. The Spurs run far more Parker and Ginobili pick and rolls than Duncan post-ups. Detroit is almost exclusively pick and roll, except fr the pin downs for Rip. The Jazz are similar with Deron and Okur. But, again, anecdotal evidence can only take you so far.

Balance is the key part of my argument. All the championship teams have good balance with their offensive attach and post play is part of that. Some teams rely heavily on pick and roll but also can switch to post play if that's what kills the other team.

But, can we name a team that has won that didn't really have a post player who could fill out the balance part of the attach?

Until the Jazz win a championship, just like PHO and Dallas and the Nets with KMart, we can't put them in the same breath as Spurs, Miami, LA, Houston, CHI, etc.

Posted by BlueSeats:

I think we're confusing a great post scorer with great post players. I think to really get an edge on a championship you want an MVP caliber post player, by which I mean someone who's well rounded in most/all facets of interior play. Just scoring down low is little compared to the likes of Duncan, Hakeem, Wilt, Reed, Kareem, Shaq, etc, who could score, rebound, defend, block, pass outside, outlet pass to lead a break, etc. When you have someone of that caliber I do think it give you an advantage over the rest of the league.

For instance, earlier I said:

I think the post scoring simply helps in terms of adding to a balanced attack, drawing fouls, adding efficiency to the scoring effort, and having a guy who can reliably create for himself when buckets are needed. In the rare event you can get all that from another position you probably don't need a low post scorer, but it's a lot harder to do from other positions on the floor.

Truth be told, I think a lot of that can actually be had from a great penetrating guard, like Marbury, Arenas, and Baron. Yup, a little guy who lives in the paint can have that kind of bigman low post scoring impact.

But even if we take the greatest of them (who might be whom - Isiah, or Tiny Archibald?) can they compare in impact to the best of the bigmen? Would anyone choose to build a franchise around Isiah (great as he was, and perhaps the absolute best of the scoring/penetrating PGs) instead of say Wilt, Kareem, Shaq, Hakeem, Moses Malone, Russell, etc? Very few would.

I think, in essence, the MVP caliber dominant post player is like a Queen in chess, or securing the middle position in a game of tic-tac-toe. It is the most advantageous piece on can have in the game. Still guarantees nothing, and we all know that chess can many times be won without the Queen on the board.

Without that well rounded post player all bets are off. Given the choice of Isiah vs Eddy Curry is a preposterous comparison and most everyone would take Isiah.

Anyway, back to the Bulls, I think people are talking about their need for post scoring simply because that seems to be their glaring weakness. They have pretty good perimeter play from Deng and Gordon, but little interior scoring from any position, and with PJ Brown's days dwindling a reliable scorer at PF seems like a natural move. Garnet and JO would appear perfect, as they have range, can defend and score down low. Anyone after that is a compromise of one sort or another.

[Edited by - blueseats on 05-19-2007 8:25 PM]

Posted by BlueSeats:

Posted by codeunknown:

Posted by BlueSeats:

I think we're confusing a great post scorer with great post players. I think to really get an edge on a championship you want an MVP caliber post player, by which I mean someone who's well rounded in most/all facets of interior play. Just scoring down low is little compared to the likes of Duncan, Hakeem, Wilt, Reed, Kareem, Shaq, etc, who could score, rebound, defend, block, pass outside, outlet pass to lead a break, etc. When you have someone of that caliber I do think it give you an advantage over the rest of the league.

For instance, earlier I said:

I think the post scoring simply helps in terms of adding to a balanced attack, drawing fouls, adding efficiency to the scoring effort, and having a guy who can reliably create for himself when buckets are needed. In the rare event you can get all that from another position you probably don't need a low post scorer, but it's a lot harder to do from other positions on the floor.

Truth be told, I think a lot of that can actually be had from a great penetrating guard, like Marbury, Arenas, and Baron. Yup, a little guy who lives in the paint can have that kind of bigman low post scoring impact.

But even if we take the greatest of them (who might be whom - Isiah, or Tiny Archibald?) can they compare in impact to the best of the bigmen? Would anyone choose to build a franchise around Isiah (great as he was, and perhaps the absolute best of the scoring/penetrating PGs) instead of say Wilt, Kareem, Shaq, Hakeem, Moses Malone, Russell, etc? Very few would.

I think, in essence, the MVP caliber dominant post player is like a Queen in chess, or securing the middle position in a game of tic-tac-toe. It is the most advantageous piece on can have in the game. Still guarantees nothing, and we all know that chess can many times be won without the Queen on the board.

Without that well rounded post player all bets are off. Given the choice of Isiah vs Eddy Curry is a preposterous comparison and most everyone would take Isiah.

Anyway, back to the Bulls, I think people are talking about their need for post scoring simply because that seems to be their glaring weakness. They have pretty good perimeter play from Deng and Gordon, but little interior scoring from any position, and with PJ Brown's days dwindling a reliable scorer at PF seems like a natural move. Garnet and JO would appear perfect, as they have range, can defend and score down low. Anyone after that is a compromise of one sort or another.

[Edited by - blueseats on 05-19-2007 8:25 PM]

I actually don't think there is much confusion between great offensive post-players and all-around post players. All-around players, as the name would imply, help in a variety of areas and, as such, are indispensable. So, regarding defense and rebounding at the 4 and 5 position, I don't think many would contest its importance. And since the Bulls have both Ben Wallace and Tyrus Thomas, it seems like they have some pieces already on that front.

Offensive post play, on the other hand, is neither necessary nor sufficient for team success, as you agreed. Its just an element, for which you can substitute guard penetration or pick and roll play with a shooter/finisher at the 4.

Sorta, because there are teams that have those things and still wish for a low post scoring threat, like perhaps Dallas and Washington, off the top of my head. They clearly need interior D also, so ideally one wants that well rounded post player that fulfills several crucial needs at once.

I think a shooting big man or pick and roll finisher substitutes very well. Dallas, in my opinion, was a victim of poor execution. They under-used Harris and, this time around, Terry/Nowitzki ran the pick and roll like Dolan runs the Knicks. A bad series for Dallas - but they beat San Antonio to get to the finals last year.

Posted by codeunknown:

Posted by BlueSeats:

Sorta, because there are teams that have those things and still wish for a low post scoring threat, like perhaps Dallas and Washington, off the top of my head. They clearly need interior D also, so ideally one wants that well rounded post player that fulfills several crucial needs at once.

I think a shooting big man or pick and roll finisher substitutes very well. Dallas, in my opinion, was a victim of poor execution. They under-used Harris and, this time around, Terry/Nowitzki ran the pick and roll like Dolan runs the Knicks. A bad series for Dallas - but they beat San Antonio to get to the finals last year.

It was Dirk himself who decided he needed to work on his inside game this off-season. The reason being that some games a shot just wont drop, and in those instances you need a more reliable option.

But in the simplest sense, a team that feels it has plateaued will seek to add whatever it lacks. In terms of offense, a team with a good low post scorer may choose to improve it's perimeter game or point guard play. Alternatively, a team with good perimeter scoring may wish to add a post presence.

I think the Bulls see themselves as the latter, but given the dearth of low post scorers they might choose to go with a pick-and-popper if a good one is available.

Posted by codeunknown:

Posted by BlueSeats:

Posted by codeunknown:

Posted by BlueSeats:

Sorta, because there are teams that have those things and still wish for a low post scoring threat, like perhaps Dallas and Washington, off the top of my head. They clearly need interior D also, so ideally one wants that well rounded post player that fulfills several crucial needs at once.

I think a shooting big man or pick and roll finisher substitutes very well. Dallas, in my opinion, was a victim of poor execution. They under-used Harris and, this time around, Terry/Nowitzki ran the pick and roll like Dolan runs the Knicks. A bad series for Dallas - but they beat San Antonio to get to the finals last year.

It was Dirk himself who decided he needed to work on his inside game this off-season. The reason being that some games a shot just wont drop, and in those instances you need a more reliable option.
.

Working on a "post game" is his individual call and probably a nice dimension to add to his overall game. It'll come in handy if opponents switch the pick and roll as GS was doing. His "epiphany," however, is more the result of media pressure than an accurate reflection of the cause of their elimination.

The reality is that Terry's failure to execute quickly on the switch was a bigger culprit in their offensive collapses. He passed up open 3 pointers (which he shoots at a 40% clip) to shoot contested pull backs. And Harris's inability to hit a jumpshot is always a pick and roll liability. Overall, shots not falling wasn't the primary issue - shot selection was their downfall. Terry waited far too long after the set screen, allowing the switch to occur freely, and Dirk predicatbly roamed to the arc - allowing Stephen Jackson and friends to guard 2 players at once. In other words, Terry failed to establish the immediate 3 point threat and Dirk failed to open up a lane for Terry by rolling to the basket. The result was contested shots at the end of the shot clock.

The pick and roll is about timing and decisions - a good partner and effective execution can mask the other player's deficiencies. Dirk should not have needed to back his player down after a failed pick and roll. There was and is enough mobility and shooting in that tandem to execute as they had a year before. So, I would disagree that they have plateaued. Rather, they seem to have strayed from the gameplan.

All of that is a liability of an offense overly dependent on one type of play. If Dallas had a better inside game GS wouldn't have been able to swarm the perimeter as they did, they might have been forced to zone, or to double down low, leaving the pick and roll, and the rest of Dallas' perimeter game, less contested.

Posted by codeunknown:
Thats not true, Blue. Coverage on the pick and roll, for instance at the top of the arc, is not affected by the presence of a "post-up" player on either side of the court. Both plays never have to be guarded simultaneously, even with the two-man game on the weak side. The presence of an athletic big man, distinct from a post-up player, down low affects the help you can provide in the lane but, even that usually doesn't impact the inital coverage. And Golden State didn't "swarm the pick and roll" with a premeditated trap - they merely switched.