I'm fine with Sochan playing PG this year. Different players will bring the ball up and run pick & rolls. Sochan is best suited as a cutter and secondary playmaker, but I don't mind him playing PG. It's not ideal, but should help on the defensive side and he gets to develop his handles and passing skills. I still see us as a 40-win team with Sochan starting at PG with different players bringing up the ball and running pick & rolls.
No it isn't - you simply misjudge it because you don't understand it. That ain't positionless basketball's fault.
And who said it isn't? You miss the point. Positionless ball says that not only do you need those skills, it's great to have more than one player excel at them - and more importantly, that those skills mustn't exclusively stem from the PG position.
Just watch Wemby roll on, and you'll catch on to it pretty quickly at the pace he's going.
Positionless is a buzzword. It's the NBA version of crypto or AI. Just because it's clunky and doesn't work doesn't mean it's complex. Just because it's easy to point out problems with it doesn't mean folks don't understand it. Sochan right now isn't really playing PG. He's just starting instead of a PG. Other teams are guarding him with wings, and he's guarding wings and forwards. He's not meaningfully occupying the role outside of him struggling to initiate the offense.
Sochan is more of a product of positionless basketball than he is a good example of it right now, tbh. The idea and principles though are just fine and unclunky, you just need more fluid players (cough, Wemby) to play outside their position and into another.
And yes, he might be guarded by wings now, but he'll eventually create mismatches at the PG position if he ecomes fluid enough to play it at all, which is not a given, and we can get away with rolling out lineups with him at 1 and Wemby at 4 with Collins. That would be insane, you can't tell me that... And that would be a good example of positionless basketball done right.
Let me repeat my original point, btw - positionless basketball is far from "nonsense", and saying that it is, when it's been the theory dominating NBA "thinktanks" for the last decade, is a really stupid thing.
I'm trying to make this as short as possible. So first, there are two ways the term "positionless basketball" can be used to my understanding. 1) Aspiring to have a lineup of mid-sized players who play a highly switchable defense and who use their combination of size, skill and agility to exploit match-ups against smaller or larger players on the opposing side. 2) A type of offense where the archetypal roles and responsibilities (ball-handling, spacing, screen-setting, etc.) are handled by all players without allowing size dictate where a player is on the court or what they do.
1) is patently stupid. It's one of those things where just a little critical thinking should be enough to see why it wouldn't work. You're never going to have a team of Lebrons. There will always be superstar talents of all sizes, and skilled forwards/wings will cost too much for a team to collect enough high-end talent to fill a rotation. Moreover I'd reckon it's far easier for short and slower players to guard mid-sized role-players than for mid-sized players to check star PGs or centers. There's a reason why the most positionless team in the NBA last year got their pushed in so badly that they made a reckless trade for a center rather than continuing to roll with their "positionless" options. This isn't high-science. It's an attempt to force tech-bro "disruptive" logic into the NBA. It's just a bull buzzword.
2) has more merit. Just as centers are coming up being given the green light to learn how to shoot threes, there will be mid-sized players who are given the freedom to explore are more diverse skill-set. That's a rather uncomplicated positive from my perspective. I think offenses that allow for guys to play multiple roles can find themselves in more creative sets. However, there are a couple of issues. Players who are average or below-average in many skills aren't going to outcompete players who are elite at a narrower selection of skills. A forward showing off a mediocre drive-and-kick game isn't bending a defense more than an elite guard dashing toward the rim. A PG setting a screen isn't going to create the same space as a center who does the same thing. Guards posting up with be easier to help on, and centers shooting threes will find themselves both away from the basket for put-backs and rim pressure and put themselves in an awkward position of having to be the point of attack in transition defense. It's definitely a "bend, not break" kind of thing. Rather than a transition to a new era, it feels more like the changes to positional norms will lead to more diverse expressions of positions rather than an abolition of them.
With that in mind, which term applies to "Sochan playing PG"? I think it depends. Some folks are advocating it based on 2) -- they think doing this is just to build skills for Jeremy to use later when he's back to playing a position that makes sense. I could see this, though I think he needs to develop into a viable NBA player based on what he can already do before trying to turn him into a lead guy. I've expressed my lament over the team seemingly following this developmental plan with all of their young players and won't put it down again. However, your response definitely seems to be leaning toward 1) -- that Sochan playing PG gives the team a physical advantage that they're exploiting because they're smarter than everyone else or whatever. That's where I disagree. Sochan will NEVER play PG well enough to force the opposing PG to guard him. That's because it's not about what he does. It would require a situation where the lineup is so good that the PG cannot guard anyone else. Even a guy like Ben Simmons, who legit would guard the opposing PG on the other end and was fast enough to make it difficult for players his size to stay in front of him couldn't do that. At best, he could guard the opposing PGs and try to catch them in transition. If the team doesn't have any guard who can check opposing PGs better than Jeremy has shown so far, they're in trouble though.And yes, he might be guarded by wings now, but he'll eventually create mismatches at the PG position if he ecomes fluid enough to play it at all, which is not a given, and we can get away with rolling out lineups with him at 1 and Wemby at 4 with Collins. That would be insane, you can't tell me that... And that would be a good example of positionless basketball done right.
So year, Sochan might work out as a PG in the same way Wesley might be a high-level guard. It could happen, but the Spurs should absolutely be looking at options with a higher chance of success. It feels like a waste of Sochan's potential with basically no upside. He can get the same touches while the team plays a more traditional lineup around him. If anything, Pop is doing the opposite of "positionless basketball" by enforcing a positional designation in a situation that didn't require one. It's hard to say there are no positions if you're going to take your 6-8 player and say, "He's the PG" rather than "There is no PG".
The Spurs fanbase has got to be the only community where topics like “this player should play this position because I think so” exist the most. I browse reddit, realgm, bleacher, other teams’ fan forums… the amount of talk here about this topic is unprecedented… if anything, kudos to Pop for making it a discussion to begin with— for his mad scientist coaching tactics that typically has led to successful player development, which is why I find it a headscratcher to see folks on the opposite side of this argument… like, especially from people who thought Dejounte Murray should have been a Danny Green type player.
Last edited by Dejounte; 10-18-2023 at 07:55 AM.
If we had a competent PG, he would be starting.
Since we don't, it's better to start Sochan out of position than have Trae outmatched.
It's about fitting the best players on the roster into the lineup. Doesn't even matter who starts, but who finishes the game.
Hopefully we get an actual PG during the season when someone asks a trade, because with current roster we'll see a lot of questionable possessions and bad execution.
Can't blame the young guys, especially if they're playing suboptimal roles, but I feel like a veteran PG would help everyone develop way faster.
Pop is still evaluating what Wemby and Co can do. Relax and trust the process. PATFO will make the decision to trade for a Vet PG if necessary when the time comes. For now they are mixing it up, experimenting what works and how they can maximize Wemby’s skills. This season and even next could be another “development” season, learning how to play among themselves, familiarity. Chill and just enjoy the ride
When this team is winning at a high level, what is Sochan’s role?
I think most can agree that he’s not a long term PG.
He doesn’t have the skill to consistently break down a defense on the PNR and find the open guy.
But I’m ok w him playing some of that role now as he develops.
It will make him better.
The finished product for Sochan probably looks like someone who can do a little bit of everything and is the ultimate role player.
His time at PG can help him develop those skills.
The shooting is improving and that development needs to continue.
I also want to see an emphasis on rebounding at some point.
Once he has all of that his position won’t matter so much. He’ll be able to fill in wherever we need him at the moment and unlock other players who are less versatile.
Heresy: I'm not sure we need a long term PG. I want the ball in Wemby's hands as much as possible, not him depending on someone else feeding him.
Personally, the 'PG' part isn't that important, other than wanting someone who is comfortable hitting from the initiating area and is a threat to drive/dish. What's most important to me is finding a way to defend the dynamic scorers in the league like Kyrie, Fox, SGA, and so on. The point position goes both ways.
A Wemby-centric offense will mostly need the PG to bring the ball up past halfcourt without getting it stolen. The Shaq/Kobe Lakers weren't dependent on Fisher feeding either one of them.
Exactly this. Come playoff time, traditional initiators take a backseat to wings taking over the ball anyway. It’s why point guards like CP3 and Nash never saw success their team’s best player. Fans think a point guard should be a certain way because it’s the type they’ve witnessed for a long time.
Draymond Green, not Danny. Danny and DeJounte are basically opposite players in terms of their strengths and weaknesses, whereas Draymond and DeJounte have a ton of overlap. Unless you mean that some folks wanted DeJounte to learn how to shoot threes rather than focusing on mid-range shots. There is more to being a Danny Green on offense than just taking set shots.
I doubt that's true. But the Spurs seem more interested in changing positional designations than a lot of teams do for better or worse. If the Spurs are truly on the cutting edge of positionless basketball it makes sense the topic would be more frequently brought up by Spurs fans.The Spurs fanbase has got to be the only community where topics like “this player should play this position because I think so” exist the most.
And you acknowledge that here, but for some reason you think it's weird that there'd be folks who don't agree just because the coach of the team they root for thinks it's a good idea. People second-guessing coaching decisions -- especially on a team that hasn't had much recent success -- is part of literally every fanbase of every sport. It's like how going for it on fourth down and going for two was a huge discussion point on Ravens forums in 2021 because Harbaugh kept making those calls. It's not shocking something that disproportionately affect their team would earn a ton of discourse. Add in the fact that it basically stopped working long before the Ravens stopped doing it, and there were many folks who disagreed with it very vocally (full disclosure: I am not a poster on those forums but was actually someone who thought it was fine).if anything, kudos to Pop for making it a discussion to begin with— for his mad scientist coaching tactics that typically has led to successful player development, which is why I find it a headscratcher to see folks on the opposite side of this argument
I think you're using "PG" here to mean like a floor-general, offense maestro kind of guy. I agree there, which is why I wasn't a fan of trading for Paul. There are multiple types of PGs, though and many of those archetypes would fit Wemby well. A score-first slashing would add a change of pace to make it harder to scheme against the Spurs. A dyanamic shooter at the position adds spacing and a secondary source of gravity. A two-way PG would diversify the defensive options. The concern from my perspective isn't that Pop wants Sochan to do PG things -- it's that Pop wants Sochan to be on the court in lieu of a PG-esque player with a relatively traditional lineup at the other positions. Just like many other teams with star non-PGs, the Spurs will likely never get away from the need for short quick guys to be in their rotation.
This is also ignoring that Wemby no matter how good he is, isn't going to use all or maybe even most of the team's possessions. The Spurs need more than one guy who can lead an offense. Wemby is a unique talent. When he's not on the court, the team will have to run completely different stuff, and it would be nice to have a guy who can do that while also being the robin during the Wemby minutes.
His compe iveness & bbiq will be his saving grace until comfortability / skill set kick in! JS will be a problem for teams in a mul ude of ways; his trajectory in my opinion is higher than Draymond G. skill set.
Here's the thing: Yes, that variation of LAL didn't need a PG most of the time. The Heatles didn't either. Yet they both still had PGs rather than starting bigger players there. Why? You can argue no one of the those Lakers teams could handle the ball well enough to justify taking even that job over Fisher. This is before they had guys like Odom and MWP. But what's the Heatles excuse? Lebron is a far more talented PG than Sochan can ever hope to be. Wade was more than capable of doing it. Heck Bosh could do it. The Heat had numerous role-playing wings who could dribble a ball up the court. Yet they still had Chalmers playing a big role and very quickly drafted a backup PG in Cole. even when you had a big PG for real in Magic Johnson, the team still started a PG-sized player next to him. What's the deal? Why do teams that have every chance to be positionless still keep to positions?
Several unimportant thoughts from my end:
1. The Spurs' system doesn't require an exceptional floor general. Even when Parker was here, he initiated the offense by driving and stirring the defense around. My guess is that this philosophy will continue after Pop. It seems to be a team iden y.
2. My issue Sochan in a lead role isn't that he's not capable of it. He'll learn and do fine. His handles will improve. It's that he's not an outside threat and the role blunts his impact off the wings, where he was at times very effective last year. I'd rather have him blowing past players his size than guarded by smaller players, which provides less of an advantage (don't really want him posting up or getting into post maneuvers too much with what we have on the floor).
3. My concern about that '1' spot, whoever holds it, has always been defensive. This franchise has always struggled with Earl Boykins types, players who are unpredictable and dynamic, and the league has drifted hard in that direction (Kyrie, Fox, SGA, etc.). The major issues stopping players in this NBA are hitting the 3-point line and trying to control those aggressive guards. This is one reason, btw, that I think Pop is liking Wembanyama more on the perimeter at this point rather than guarding bigs. His length and roaming can help out there while remaining available for help-side defense. And this may be a reason why I remain optimistic about Wesley, since he's our best perimeter/point-of-attack defender.
You have to have the personnel to defend every (possible) position. Having players who can guard multiple positions gives us that flexibility (as well as having Wemby).
You have to have the personnel to bring the ball up the floor. We would have 4 out of 5 players capable of that in a Sochan, Vassell, Johnson, Wemby, & Collins SL. (Collins being the odd man out).
You have to have the personnel to pass the ball and have high BBIQ. All 5 of those players qualify.
You have to have the personnel to shoot the ball. (Sochan is the odd man out, but so would Jones be - and that's the biggest reason for not having them share the floor). If they can't shoot, they have to score in other ways (Sochan can).
If Sochan is starting "PG" then opposing PGs would (most likely) be guarding Vassell and that is a mismatch we can take advantage of.
Has anybody here realized that Vassell ran the pick and roll with 1.02 points per possession? That's the same rate as De'Aron Fox and Kyrie Irving
i expect vassell to continue improving his playmaking as well.
in the same way i think sochan should try to emulate draymond, i feel vassell's ideal direction is becoming a middleton
1.02 PPP is well below league average for efficiency across all plays types from last season (1.148), so I don't think I would want a steady diet of PnRs with Vassell.
their dimensions are similar. sochan slightly taller, green with a slightly longer wingspan
but green seems a lot stronger than sochan, and shows way more suddenness when attacking with the ball in his hands. sochan does seem to have better scoring touch from close to mid-range.
its also notable that sochan as farther along than draymond was at the same age. draymond was a 22 year old rookie and wasnt really a good full time player until his 3rd year in the league as a 24 year old. sochan wont turn 21 until after this season ends. if sochan can become as good as draymond thats already a phenomenal outcome, obviously. think he needs to get quite a bit stronger, but has time to get there. he's stll a kid playing among men
The lineup for this season doesn't really matter, Spurs will be mediocre at best with their current roster. What matters is the lineup in 2/3 years when Spurs will try to be a serious contender.
IMO, Spurs' plan A for their future lineup is:
PG: a new player
SG: Vassell
SF: Johnson
PF: Sochan
C: Wembanyama
That's the plan A and it might, of course, derail: Johnson and/or Sochan might not be good enough, Wembanyama might be more suited to play PF...
Now, if everything goes well, it will be a damn good lineup.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
