Does Size Really Matter?

[duncan228]

This is about basketball people, not what you first thought! :lol

I usually only post articles from "experts", talking heads in the sports world, not Joe Public Blogs. But I thought this was interesting. It continues the small ball conversation. Thoughts?

http://www.armchairgm.com/index.php?title=Does_Size_Really_Matter%3F

Does Size Really Matter?

by user Zupaclypse

With the post-season success of teams such as the Phoenix Suns, Golden State Warriors, and Chicago Bulls, the perception of the model NBA franchise has changed significantly in recent years. Prior to the emergence of the Suns, the NBA landscape was dominated by teams with sizable big men. The old-school view was that in order to compete for a championship, a back-to-the-basket five man (e.g. Shaquille O'Neal) who clogged up the lane would provide the most success in the playoffs, when the game slowed down to a half-court grind it out battle. Teams that had multiple big bodies (Spurs with David Robinson and Tim Duncan and Detroit with Rasheed and Ben Wallace) often faired even better.

The Chicago Bulls run in the 90s was considered an exception to the rule, mainly because they had the worlds greater player in Michael Jordan. However, after the demise of the Laker dynasty, the league decided that it had had enough of 160 point ballgames. They began tweaking the rules of the game, enforcing hand-checking on the perimeter, allowing zone defenses, and even widening the court. This is when the Phoenix Suns, having just signed free agent Steve Nash, began their run that has ultimately changed the product we see on the floor today.

With floor vision not seen since the likes of Magic Johnson, Nash transformed the Suns into a run-and-gun team that won a remarkable 61 games without a tradional 5 man. Steve picked up an MVP award that year, but the Suns bowed out to the more experienced Spurs in the Western Conference finals in 5 games. The past two seasons, the Suns, despite suffering critical injuries (including a year without their center Amare Stoudamire), have continued to put their imprint on the game, winning over fans from across the globe. After a series with the Spurs that ended in controversy, it is clear that the Suns are America's team because of their entertaining run-and-gun style of play.

Although the Suns invented small ball, the Chicago Bulls and Golden State Warriors both employed this concept to great results this post-season. The Bulls swept the defending champion Miami Heat, overcoming a huge size disadvantage (their center is 6-9), with athletic and sweet-shooting guards and small forwards. The Warriors knocked out a 67-win powerhouse in the Dallas Mavericks, relying on a band of athletes (6'3" to 6'9") who switched screens, and ran the Mavs out of their structured offense and into an early summer. Although both franchises hit roadblocks in the second round where it appeared that size impacted the outcomes, a more accurate conclusion would be that they lost due to a vast experience gap moreso than size by itself.

Since only one team wins the Larry O'Brien Trophy each season, the fact that several teams enjoyed success at the NBA's biggest stage (and winning over a large fan base with style of play) without the traditional height advantage of the past demonstrates that the league is migrating from a game of size and strength to a game of speed, versatility, and athleticism. This combined with the continous rule tweaks by the league to allow a more free-following game, proves that the strategies for building a contender have changed. The consensus is that size is no longer the key part of the equation. Stay tuned for how this impacts the role of franchise building in the near future.

[L.I.T]

Heh...he thinks the Suns invented small-ball. Nuff said about his knowledge.

[Xylus]

Heh...he thinks the Suns invented small-ball. Nuff said about his knowledge.
That's not what he said at all.

He said the Suns were the most influential factor in this change.

[dbestpro]

And how many championships has small ball won lately? Let me see. Hmmm. None. Even the Bulls of Jordan were not small ball as they always used a conventional center, power foward set. Small ball allows bad teams to compete. That is all.

[L.I.T]

That's not what he said at all.

He said the Suns were the most influential factor in this change.



Although the Suns invented small ball...

Sorry bout that.

Point stands. Yay for reading comprehension.

[duncan228]

No, he said it. (Not me! I didn't write it.)

"Although the Suns invented small ball,"

[Reggie Miller]

This sort of thing makes my puzzler hurt. :dizzy


Let me see if I understand this article. Some day soon, size will not matter in basketball? Are they planning on lowering the rim anytime soon? Otherwise, you really can't defend that premise, period.

Also, when did the Suns become "America's Team?" Most NBA fans have their favorite and/or local team already. I haven't seen any evidence whatsoever of this mass exodus of fandom everyone keeps jibber-jabberin' about.

[AFBlue]

The Bulls don't run an up-and-down game and have a staunch defense...so they were the outlier in the list of teams having success with the up-tempo style.

Phoenix and GS were both successful....until they ran into teams with big inside scorers.

Teams who have a good balance of players (inside scorers and outside shooters), the versatility to adapt, and play good defense will always be at the top.

The only team like that in this league right now....is San Antonio.

[AFBlue]

Oh, and Phoenix may have run an up-tempo game, but they were at their best when they abandoned the small-ball with Diaw and went with Kurt Thomas instead....they showed that "adaptability" trait.

[Reggie Miller]

Teams who have a good balance of players (inside scorers and outside shooters), the versatility to adapt, and play good defense will always be at the top.

The only team like that in this league right now....is San Antonio.


I just read Walt "Clyde" Frazier's The Game Within the Game. In his opinion, San Antonio is the only team in the NBA that can 1) enforce its will and style upon any opponent via team defense; and 2) play any offensive style in order to counter an opponent that also plays team defense.

Some other interesting points from the book:

1. In Frazier's opinion, the "Triangle Offense" and "Princeton Offense" are merely overly formal models of the basic principles that all good offensive teams have always used in some form.

2. Frazier believes that Tim Duncan is the best player in the league, and it isn't even debatable.

3. Frazier believes that Popovich and Larry Brown are the best coaches in the league.

[Solid D]

The author is a neophyte. Next.

[duncan228]

The author is a neophyte. Next.

:lol

Like I said, I usually don't post "Joe Public" Blogs. Most of the posters on the board could have done better!

I thought it might be good for conversation and a laugh!

[ShoogarBear]

1. Nash has court vision not seen since Magic Johnson? John Stockton and Jason Kidd will be interested in hearing that. Nash is the beneficiary of a gimmick system.

2. Since 1994, excluding MJ's Bulls and the 2004 Piston, all of the NBA titles have been won by a team with one of the following: Hakeem Olajuwon, Shaquille O'Neal, or Tim Duncan.



The author is a neophyte.

Indeed.

[ShoogarBear]

I just read Walt "Clyde" Frazier's The Game Within the Game. In his opinion, San Antonio is the only team in the NBA that can 1) enforce its will and style upon any opponent via team defense; and 2) play any offensive style in order to counter an opponent that also plays team defense.

Some other interesting points from the book:

1. In Frazier's opinion, the "Triangle Offense" and "Princeton Offense" are merely overly formal models of the basic principles that all good offensive teams have always used in some form.

2. Frazier believes that Tim Duncan is the best player in the league, and it isn't even debatable.

3. Frazier believes that Popovich and Larry Brown are the best coaches in the league.I might have to read that. Does Clyde break out the thesaurus when he writes as much as he does when he announces? :lol

[tlongII]

Greg Oden and LaMarcus Aldridge fart in the author's general direction.

[Reggie Miller]

I might have to read that. Does Clyde break out the thesaurus when he writes as much as he does when he announces? :lol

He's not too bad. I checked the book out from the public library, and it was worth reading at @180 pages. I would have been disappointed if I had paid for the book, since 180 pages at normal hardback prices is just too steep.

The only real criticism I have is that none of Frazier's premises are completely developed. That is, you feel like he would have said more, if not for his current gig with the Knicks. For example, he uses the Knicks as an illustration of poor management decisions and rampant individualism in the league. However, he obviously isn't saying all that he could.

In the final analysis, Frazier doesn't say much that either Charles Barkley and/or Harvey Araton haven't already written about in previous books, such as I May Be Wrong...But I Doubt It and Crashing the Borders. However, more and more people inside the NBA are now addressing some of these issues openly, especially the inherent corruption in the AAU/sneaker company marriage.

[Nathan Explosion]

Let see, going back all the way to the 80s, how many teams won using the run and gun/small ball style? Anyone?

Not only did the Bulls use a traditional 4/5 combo, but they had a 6'6" SG (about 2-3 inches taller that the norm for the time) and a SF who was 6'8", or about as tall as Karl Malone if you're scoring at home.

That may not be a traditional champion, but they were a big team when you really look at it.

http://www.nba.com/history/finals/champions.html

Find me a team that has won the title using a small ball/run and gun style? As far back as I've looked, they've all had big men inside. Even recent history can tell you that.

Let's see, discounting the Bulls, here are the champs since the 90s.

Pistons (Lambier, Rodman, Mahorn)
Rockets (Hakeem)
Spurs (Duncan and Robinson)
Lakers (Shaq)
Spurs
Pistons (Wallaces)
Spurs (Duncan and Rasho :P)
Heat (Shaq)
Spurs (Duncan)

Nope, no small ball there.

[gaKNOW!blee]

Let see, going back all the way to the 80s, how many teams won using the run and gun/small ball style? Anyone?

Not only did the Bulls use a traditional 4/5 combo, but they had a 6'6" SG (about 2-3 inches taller that the norm for the time) and a SF who was 6'8", or about as tall as Karl Malone if you're scoring at home.

That may not be a traditional champion, but they were a big team when you really look at it.

http://www.nba.com/history/finals/champions.html

Find me a team that has won the title using a small ball/run and gun style? As far back as I've looked, they've all had big men inside. Even recent history can tell you that.

Let's see, discounting the Bulls, here are the champs since the 90s.

Pistons (Lambier, Rodman, Mahorn)
Rockets (Hakeem)
Spurs (Duncan and Robinson)
Lakers (Shaq)
Spurs
Pistons (Wallaces)
Spurs (Duncan and Rasho :P)
Heat (Shaq)
Spurs (Duncan)

Nope, no small ball there.discounting the Bulls? you cant just throw 6 champions out the window.

[Reggie Miller]

Even in the ABA, the dominant teams (Pacers and Nets) had one or more big men. The prototypical run-and-gun team, the 1973-1976 ABA Denver Nuggets, never won anything.

As others have mentioned, small ball is the last recourse of teams that just don't have a true center. In the case of the ABA, this became a more prevalent style precisely becuase all of the true big men went to the NBA. Once many teams were forced to play that way, they and the league began to market the ABA as a more up-tempo and exciting game. However, it was never planned that way. It was more of a case of making lemonade when life hands you lemons.

[Reggie Miller]

The more I think about this the more I couldn't escape this analogy:

The Yankees have overpriced, aging starting pitching. The Yankees rely heavily on middle relievers because two of their starters cannot pitch even 7 full innings on a regular basis. The Yankees contend for their division every year (at least until this year). Obviously, the Yankees prove that having crappy, old starters is a viable strategy for building a consistent runner-up.

Thank you! San Antonio audiences are the greatest audiences in the world!

[michaelwcho]

Interesting case of the tail wagging the dog.

Teams realize they can't win without a great big man, so they find a bunch of smaller, talented players. (small talented players are much more common than big talented players).

This strategy, essentially playing as many scorers as possible at a time, seems to allow them to beat other teams without a great big man.

yet we have still not seen a case of a small team beating a team built around a great big man.

So it appears that it may very well be a good strategy for a team without a great big man to load up on great small men and forgo size, but it does not follow that it will lead them to ultimate success.

[Solid D]

discounting the Bulls? you cant just throw 6 champions out the window.


FWIW, teams running the Triple Post offense won 9 championships over a 12-year period. The Bulls used traditional, non-athletic Bigs on their teams. Cartwright and Perdue were big plodding centers, as were Wennington and Longley during their 2nd triad of championships.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

Was Bill Cartwright around for Jordan's first three titles?

And who can forget the mighty Luc Longley, 7'2" and 275lbs anchoring the paint for Jordan's second trilogy.

I think this author overlooked the greatness in the post from those Jordan-era squads.

[peskypesky]

The author of this article is a moron and there's nothing more to be said.

[barbacoataco]

I don't understand why Phoenix is considered to be so small. They have Amare as a PF/C, one of the best bigs in the game. They also play Diaw. I think their main difference is their pace or tempo. Now Golden State really was playing a small line-up, and it worked against the Mavs, not the Jazz. The point someone made is that flexibility is good, and the best teams can adapt to different match-up problems.

[Switchman]

Fuck small ball.

This be the Tim Duncan era.

[Nathan Explosion]

FWIW, teams running the Triple Post offense won 9 championships over a 12-year period. The Bulls used traditional, non-athletic Bigs on their teams. Cartwright and Perdue were big plodding centers, as were Wennington and Longley during their 2nd triad of championships.

I discounted the Bulls because they didn't have a great big man, and they were the exception to the rule because they had the greatest player of all time.

Even then, that didn't make the Bulls a small team, as I pointed out in the cases of Jordan and Pippen. Both were playing men that were shorter than they were. During that era, Jordan was more of a SF in height, and Pippen was more of a PF in height, although he didn't have the girth to play that, so was a SF by body type. Pippen, the SF, was as tall as Rodman, the PF.

So while they didn't have dominating post play, they were still a big team at other positions.

[Solid D]

The article was silly. A back-to-the-basket post player does not necessarily equal success. The Triangle offense didn't derive it's success from dumping it into the post. The Pistons' offenses of the 80s and even in the mid 2000s weren't based on feeding the post. The dominant players and MVPs of the Pistons (Thomas, Dumars, Billups) and Bulls (Jordan) series' were guards. Championship teams don't need a back-to-the-basket dominant player. Yes, they had Bigs and didn't normally go "small" to win so the real burden of proof in the NBA still remains with teams like the Suns who try to win it all by going "small".