I got the idea for this post from sitting down the first night I got this year’s Pro Basketball Prospectus. By the way, that book is a must. Did you hear me? It’s a must if you’re any kind of an NBA fan. Most of you have already heard about it but I want to make sure you hear it from me: Buy this book!
And as far as Christmas gifts, it’s a no-brainer for anyone remotely interested in basketball at any level. It will give you insight into players and teams you heretofore haven’t even thought about and also tell you all about the new metrics being used to effectively evaluate teams and players. I’m a huge fan of the Prospectus books, having been a consumer of the Baseball Prospectus for many seasons and this is every bit as good.
And as far as a gift goes, it’s the best — it keeps on giving for months because it’s not a cover-to-cover read. It’s one you want to peck away at, reading here and there and digesting what you read. You have my permission to leave this post momentarily and buy the book right here, if you promise to come right back.
Anyway, I digress… What I read in the Trail Blazer section of the book, written by the renown Kevin Pelton, was this:
“Portland’s offseason strategy made it clear the team’s braintrust was deeply concerned about how the Blazers lost to the Rockets. Houston was able to hold the league’s second-best regular-season offense in check, rotating stoppers Shane Battier and Ron Artest on Roy — with plenty of assistance from a defense well-schooled in offering help. Essentially, the Rockets dared the other Portland players to beat them, and those role players were unequal to the task,
As a reaction, the Blazers went looking for another creator on offense who could relieve some of the pressure on Roy. . . . “
Well-stated, and true. We all heard the same things. And I think this was a total misconception about what the team actually needed. And it was a very big misinterpretation of what happened in that playoff series.
First off, the idea that you need more than one “initiator” of offense is kind of crazy. Of course, if you had another one, it would be OK — but it’s not necessary. What was lost in that whole summary of that series is that the Blazers lost to a team that had NO OFFENSIVE INITIATORS!
Prior to the series, Rick Adelman told me flat out, “Our problem, since we lost Tracy McGrady, is we don’t have anyone who we can give the ball to who can just get a shot when we need it. We don’t have anybody now who can do that. Tracy could. What are we going to do? I think it’s possible for different people to step up in different games and make a difference. We’ll execute our offense and see what we get.”
And the whole point is, without a man who can get his own shot — without, really, any great offensive stalwarts — the Rockets ran their offense to perfection and picked the Blazers apart, getting great shots throughout. It’s the way basketball was meant to be played — a team actually getting points FROM ITS OFFENSE, rather than just from an individual player going one-on-one.
And then watch Portland operate. I’ve been encouraged lately to see Portland getting a few, a scant few, points off pick and rolls and backcuts for lobs at the basket. Finally — a few buckets not coming from one-on-one play.
Watch Portland some night — well, maybe not tonight against the hapless Wolves but against a real NBA team — and see how many times they get the ball to Brandon Roy, LaMarcus Aldridge or Greg Oden and just let them go one-on-one. They work hard for their hoops — but are still vulnerable when other teams play solid help defense and run another defender at them.
It’s not just the Trail Blazers, by the way. It’s rampant around the NBA. Just because you happen to have a player on your team who can beat people one-on-one doesn’t mean you have to totally abandon sound offensive principles. It’s almost as if coaches have given in to players and don’t have the will to demand disciplined offense.
But it’s the reason there’s a pretty good gap developing between the really good teams in the league and the bad ones. The good ones defend that sort of offense with help defense — rendering such teams impotent.
The answer, of course, isn’t just in adding another one-on-one player. The answer is giving the team offensive structure that actually leads to points on a consistent basis. If you’re going to call pick and rolls, actually use the pick — and look for the man rolling toward the basket. Drive and dish. Set screens away from the ball and watch for the man who set the screen to roll open at the basket. Move without the ball, move the ball and move bodies.
Houston sliced and diced Portland with that kind of stuff last season in the playoffs and are still doing it. But for a team to execute in the halfcourt like that, it must be unselfish, disciplined and smart. The reward, though, is great — because you will find open shooters all over the court if you run your offense well.
Often, when I watch the Blazers try to execute against good NBA defenses, I’m reminded of the great line from Hall of Fame football coach John McKay, when he was coaching the horrid, expansion Tampa Bay Bucs. “What do you think of your team’s execution?” McKay was asked.
“I’d be in favor of it,” McKay deadpanned.
Tweet This Post
Tags: Basketball Prospectus, Dwight Jaynes, Houston Rockets, Kevin Pelton, Portland Trail Blazers, Rick Adelman, Tracy McGrady