Conventional Basketball

[Uriel]

I've never really understood why a basketball team has to consist of a PG, SG, SF, PF, and C. When the game of basketball was invented, those positions seem to have been arbitrarily created without a specific tailor made purpose for doing so, but rather, merely for the sake of it. It's almost as if the inventors (and obviously, I'm not referring to James Naismith per se, but to all the people who have come and gone through the years contributing to the game) simply decided that the 5 players playing for each team had to have respective positions and they just made up a bunch of names for them.

Now, as basketball has evolved through the years, there is no doubt that each position has come to occupy its own role on the floor. Centers for instance don't normally go dribbling the ball up the court in the same way that point guards don't hang around the paint to hunt for blocked shots. But I simply don't understand why the 5 players on the floor have to get progressively taller as you go up the positional ladder (that is, from point guard to center). And for that matter, I don't understand why they have to fill the specific roles their position is designated for, and how this designation somehow necessarily relates to their heights.

For instance, why do centers have to be bruisers or bangers in the paint as opposed to hanging out on the perimeter looking for 3 pointers? Those who do occupy the aforementioned rare niche are, more often than not, berated for it, in part because they don't play basketball the way people think big men should (see: Matt Bonner). Similarly, why do shooting guards have to be the designated perimeter scorer instead small forwards, why should power forwards hunt for the rebound instead of centers, or why should point guards take care of floor general duties instead of shooting guards? For that matter, who is to say that a team even needs a floor general at all? Or a bruiser, rebounder, or 3 point shooter for that matter.

Granted, players in different positions occupy multiple roles, and as a consequence, their niches tend to overlap. That explains why, in the Spurs' system, shooting guards and small forwards as well as power forwards and centers are more or less interchangeable. But if that's the case, doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of the whole system of positioning to begin with? Why can't the Spurs then run a basketball team with 5 PGs or 5 Cs or 2 PGs, 1 SF, and 2 Cs, or any combination thereof? Why can't Tim Duncan see the floor at the floor at the same time as Tiago Splitter and Matt Bonner, and then pair them up with James Anderson and Danny Green or something? Or for that matter, why can't the Lakers run a starting lineup of:

PG - Kobe Bryant
SG - Ron Artest
SF - Lamar Odom
PF - Pau Gasol
C - Andrew Bynum

Those 5 guys are easily the team's 5 best players, and running a lineup like that gives them a significant size advantage over any lineup any team can trot out that basically doesn't involve 5 7-footers on the floor at the same time. But those 5 guys have never played together. Andrew Bynum gets benched in favor of the corpse of Derek Fisher when the Lakers play down the stretch, because that lineup lacks a true point guard, and Fisher fills that need. But that immediately begs the question, why does that lineup need a true point guard? Who is to say that adding Fisher to run the triangle offense (which I can conceivably see the Lakers doing without him) is a better idea than throwing in another dominant interior defender and rebounder? Of course, one can always argue that Fisher provides intangibles that Bynum simply cannot at this stage of his career. But if that's the case, why don't the Lakers just employ a lineup of 5 Fishers or the equivalent of it? Why do they have to stick with the conventional designated basketball positions? For the record, though it doesn't really mean much, I've used that lineup in NBA 2K11 whenever I've used the Lakers, and it's often led to great success (and the general consternation of other players I've played against).

How do basketball coaches know that trotting out a lineup that involves the traditional 5 positions represents their best chance at winning basketball games? What evidence is there to back up the notion that a lineup involving the aforementioned conventional basketball positions constitutes a better overall team than one that plays any combination of said positions while still occupying diverse enough roles to not occupy other people's niches, but rather, enhance one anther's roles simply by virtue of the fact that one's role is tailor made to inherently do so? Of course, I'm not seriously suggesting that a lineup involving 5 PGs or 5Cs is better than the conventional one. But I do often wonder how we somehow decided that the conventional lineup is necessarily the most effective one.

[Cessation]

Interesting thread son, I applaud your effort. It's more efficient to specialize then have players be jack of all trades. That's why, for example, shooting guards for the most part concentrate on shooting. It's better to have one guy, take 1000 jumpers in practice, rather than have 5 players shoot only 200 each. The one guy will be far more proficient from outside, therefore more valuable to the team. You want to have as much height, speed and strength as possible at every position, that's why, I think, you have the height increase from pg to c. That big laker lineup, would unbalance the team, opposing benches would kill the bench players that would be left. Teams would take advantage of the slower, bean, artest, and odom. They would gas quicker, and transiton defence would suffer as well, they wouldn't be able to keep up. It's a trade of I believe, coaches are looking to find that balance, to get the most out of their team, putting out players, that are as fast, tall, and strong as possible, without having missmatches that would put them in a dissadvantage.

[spursfaninla]

I think that a team with players who each have the strengths or skills of each position are the most comprehensively suited to offense and defense; this is why teams try to fill those roles.

You need a player with good ball handling; that usually occurs in shorter players.

You need good shooters; again, usually shorter players.

Good driver/slashers; these players are usually shorter, but taller with enough speed are useful here too.


The issue is really speed and skills versus height. On balance, an equally fast, skilled, tall player is better than an equal shorter player. However, speed, coordination, and skills are harder to develop in really tall players. So you find the skill positions are usually shorter players.

When you get a skill player who is really tall, it is rare and they tend to create huge mismatches; see Magic.

Another example is scottie pippen and Lebron; the point-forward position is unnatural because the skill to play point is very rare in players that tall. When it happens, it is a huge advantage to teams. Even then, those teams usually play a shorter, skilled shooter to match up against the other pg instead of going big because of the speed issues.

Lakers would be too slow, I agree. Kobe would get too tired bringing the ball up all the time to then hold the ball creating half the game. But I thought of the big lineup with the lakers as well, I must admit.

[cantthinkofanything]

Nice thread OP. I was actually going to start a thread asking the question, "if you could field a team with the top 5 of one position, which team would win". IE; would a team of the top five SG of all time beat a team of the top 5 PF. But in the end, it seemed clear that a team of the top 5 centers would probably dominate.

But I think the traditional positions eveloved out of need. You need someone big who can pull down rebounds and get position for high % shots. You need someone that can handle the ball. You need someone that can shoot. Etc. Shit, I just realized that I don't have the motivation or maybe the smarts to finish what I was thinking.

But again, good job on the thread.

[dbestpro]

It's hard to find players that can do everything. You need players who can pass and bring the ball up, you need to be able to shoot the ball from outside and penetrate, you need to be able to rebound, you need to be able to play defense and you need to be able to match up.

The titles are irrelevant but the PG usually passes and brings the ball up, shooters are PG and SFs, rebounders are PFs and centers, everyone needs to play defense against the teams respective option. SFs should be your best defender, while PGs should be able to steal the ball. All are genrealizations and you can take away the titles and just fill the skillsets and you will get the same value.

Matchups prevent a team from successfully playing 5 players from one position or another.

[LongtimeSpursFan]

Too long to answer but let me give it a try. Lets assume we know nothing about basketball but at first glance why not just go all tall players. Well then the problem is that you would have no one that could dribble the ball up the court so setting up an offense would be difficult so would running plays as big men usually arent good passers or dribblers. Well then why not go all small players. Problem if playing a team that has all big players then they could just protect interior and force small players to shoot over them. Of course if small players miss shot then it would be very difficult for them to get a rebound.
So you gotta figure then that you need at LEAST one big player (to protect middle and to rebound) and at LEAST one dribbler. But even this is not ideal.

Well then why not four bigs and one dribbler or four smalls and one big? Same situation a team could counter four bigs by going four dribblers/shooters. Small team could cause havoc by pressing bigs in a full court situation but big team could overwhelm small team by pounding boards and inside game. So that leads us to then a better mix of three bigs and two smalls. Although one of the bigs should be able to not only rebound but ideally a decent passer.
I've always felt it was important to have three dribblers on the floor. Even if the third dribbler wasnt necessarily very good at it. He should be able to take a couple of dribbles without feeling too uncomfortable and then when need to he should be able to make a decent pass.

So now lets look at a good dribbler (PG) versus a decent dribbler (SG). Most players are not good dribblers so finding one is very important. Intererestingly enough is that players that are not dribblers are not use to having the ball in the hands too often. If you look at players like LeBron, Kobe, Ginobili, and Turkoglu they are all capable of creating their own shot off the dribble but if they are forced to bring the ball up the court then create their own shot then it becomes much more difficult. WHY? Because they have exerted so much energy just bringing up ball into the frontcourt that they are already out of rhythm. MThis is why teams have a real dribbler (PG) bring it up court and then hand it off to one of those players like I had previously mentioned.

[ChuckD]

I've never really understood why a basketball team has to consist of a PG, SG, SF, PF, and C. When the game of basketball was invented, those positions seem to have been arbitrarily created without a specific tailor made purpose for doing so, but rather, merely for the sake of it.

Actually, that's not true. There is nothing in the rules of basketball as laid out by Mr. Naismith about positions at all. They evolved and refined as the game itself did. In fact, I would argue that they are now devolving, and that we now have a bunch of shooting guards and combo forwards playing the game. No one wants to just distribute and set up plays any more, and damn near no one wants to play with their back to the basket anymore, either.

[TDMVPDPOY]

those positions were invented so the white lanky small guys can play and fill up the roster making up the numbers on the court

[GSH]

I once saw Don Nelson put three 7-footers on the floor at one time, along with another 6'9" player, and a shooting guard.

Coaches get away from "conventional" lineups all the time. It's all about matchups - and trying to create mis-matches that favor your own team. To do that, you need players who can perform some task not normally expected from their position. Or maybe the opposing team has a player who is weak in a particular area, so you can afford to put in a non-"conventional" lineup against them. The conventional lineup you listed is mostly about balance, and about covering all of the functions required.

The problem with non-conventional lineups is, the other team gets to make adjustments. Don Nelson was able to put in three 7-footers because one of them was Dirk, who can sit outside and rain 3-pointers. It worked pretty well for a few minutes. The other team made substitutions, and it quit working so well.