A Way to Improve Next Year's Inside Game

[greybeard]

Notwithstanding the overwhelming evidence, I get that there are many, many of you who do not see the connection between effective offense in basketball and emersion in soccer experience. What evidence? Take a look at the top six players on each team in the NBA finals for starters; note where they are from. I'll just chalk it up to your unwillingness to relate to any sport that is played with one's feet, since that is too far outside most American's skill range to accomplish (you think hitting a golf ball effectively is difficult, come on, we all do, try kicking a soccer ball; what am I saying, you probably have.)

But, I am not here to beat a dead horse.

Having watched the LAX semis and finals, seems to me that the perimeter players on the basketball team ought to be hangin with the guys who've been getting it to Greer all season. Greer plays the post, 99 percent he catches it on the move, and the ball is in the air BEFORE he gets to the spot both passer and catcher have chosen before Greer has taken a step. It might be a tilt of the head, a look in the eye, a hesitation in movement; something subtle, enough to recognize that a space is likely to appear and where, and for "the play" to be afoot.

You want Zman and LT to be more effective, its LAX baby! You're off the hook on soccer for now.

[Indoor66]

Another issue de jour.

[mgtr]

The guys you mentioned have enough trouble playing basketball: Lets not start adding new sports!

[Zeke]

Any word on Z. Jumbo what's the scoop - is he the go to guy?

[greybeard]

The guys you mentioned have enough trouble playing basketball: Lets not start adding new sports!

Actually, what I was suggesting is that the guys who feed Z and LT the ball study the LAX guys who get the ball to Greer. Otherwise, we are 100 ercent on the same page.

You want inside scoring, improve the ability of your exterior players to see it and throw it, before the guy is there. Z sees and makes the moves to receive the ball and score, not to wait to receive the ball and score. Lance, if you hit him moving up the lane, has the footwork for a very effective turn and elevate 12-15 footer. That would make him one very dangerous dude.

Improve the vision and passing to the interior of the exterior players is the point.

[SilkyJ]

Actually, what I was suggesting is that the guys who feed Z and LT the ball study the LAX guys who get the ball to Greer. Otherwise, we are 100 ercent on the same page.

You want inside scoring, improve the ability of your exterior players to see it and throw it, before the guy is there. Z sees and makes the moves to receive the ball and score, not to wait to receive the ball and score. Lance, if you hit him moving up the lane, has the footwork for a very effective turn and elevate 12-15 footer. That would make him one very dangerous dude.

Improve the vision and passing to the interior of the exterior players is the point.

If only there was someone one who plays basketball who has good vision and good passing that they could study.

[mgtr]

If only there was someone one who plays basketball who has good vision and good passing that they could study.

Or videotapes of someone from the past, possibly even on the Duke team!

[SilkyJ]

Or videotapes of someone from the past, possibly even on the Duke team!

Dont be ridiculous. We've never had any good passing PGs with good vision. If only we had the NCAA all-time assists leader...

[thebur]

Greybeard,

I never seem to get what it is that makes it seem like the most important thing for our players to be acquainted with are sports OTHER than the one they play. The best training for being a good basketball player involves, surprise to all of us, studying and practicing basketball.

I played multiple sports and think crossover can be very helpful, but honestly, the best thing someone can do to get better at basketball is to do drills, practice, and film work that actually deal with basketball.

I know it doesn't make sense but few things in life do.

[jawk24]

Notwithstanding the overwhelming evidence, I get that there are many, many of you who do not see the connection between effective offense in basketball and emersion in soccer experience. What evidence? Take a look at the top six players on each team in the NBA finals for starters; note where they are from. I'll just chalk it up to your unwillingness to relate to any sport that is played with one's feet, since that is too far outside most American's skill range to accomplish (you think hitting a golf ball effectively is difficult, come on, we all do, try kicking a soccer ball; what am I saying, you probably have.)

But, I am not here to beat a dead horse.

Having watched the LAX semis and finals, seems to me that the perimeter players on the basketball team ought to be hangin with the guys who've been getting it to Greer all season. Greer plays the post, 99 percent he catches it on the move, and the ball is in the air BEFORE he gets to the spot both passer and catcher have chosen before Greer has taken a step. It might be a tilt of the head, a look in the eye, a hesitation in movement; something subtle, enough to recognize that a space is likely to appear and where, and for "the play" to be afoot.

You want Zman and LT to be more effective, its LAX baby! You're off the hook on soccer for now.

Two words, recruit better!

[greybeard]

Greybeard,

I never seem to get what it is that makes it seem like the most important thing for our players to be acquainted with are sports OTHER than the one they play. The best training for being a good basketball player involves, surprise to all of us, studying and practicing basketball.

I played multiple sports and think crossover can be very helpful, but honestly, the best thing someone can do to get better at basketball is to do drills, practice, and film work that actually deal with basketball.

I know it doesn't make sense but few things in life do.

Inbreading. The basketball world in America has run stale because of it, at least in my view. What people see becomes routinized and their vision narrowed. Walking outside the box of the familiar expands vision, expands possibility, gets the mind working in a way that viewing and examining and thinking about the familiar does not. This is how growth and self learning take place. Not by studying tape. Sorry, it is just the way it is.

[MulletMan]

Sorry, it is just the way it is.

No... actually that's merely your opinion. Not really fact.

There are multiple ways to bring freshness to a sport like basketball. However, the problem that you are attempting to address is not something new and innovative. It is a fundamental set of skills that have existed for many years. Big guys need to learn what spots to post up in, and how to execute in those spots once they have the ball through good fookwork, recognizing the double team, etc. These are fundamentals that they can learn from studying tape of basketball games, not lacrosse or soccer games. Our perimiter players need to learn to anticipate when our interior players will be in good position to recieve the ball in scoring position. They also need to learn to make good entry passes and be in position to recieve balls when interior players get double teamed. Again, these are fundamentals that don't need to be reinvented, but need to be perfected. This does not take "thinking outside the box". It takes repetition, practice and experience. It is not achieved by watching lacrosse.

That, my friend, is my opinion. You are certainley entitled to disagree, but don't tout opinion as fact. Its unbecoming.

[greybeard]

No... actually that's merely your opinion. Not really fact.

There are multiple ways to bring freshness to a sport like basketball. However, the problem that you are attempting to address is not something new and innovative. It is a fundamental set of skills that have existed for many years. Big guys need to learn what spots to post up in, and how to execute in those spots once they have the ball through good fookwork, recognizing the double team, etc. These are fundamentals that they can learn from studying tape of basketball games, not lacrosse or soccer games. Our perimiter players need to learn to anticipate when our interior players will be in good position to recieve the ball in scoring position. They also need to learn to make good entry passes and be in position to recieve balls when interior players get double teamed. Again, these are fundamentals that don't need to be reinvented, but need to be perfected. This does not take "thinking outside the box". It takes repetition, practice and experience. It is not achieved by watching lacrosse.

That, my friend, is my opinion. You are certainley entitled to disagree, but don't tout opinion as fact. Its unbecoming.

Sure it's my opinion, not some truth from upon high. However, my opinion has come from years of study and careful exploration with some masters in the field of movement and learning, so I do bring a perspective grounded in more than thin air.

Now, a few more of my opinions, "For What It's Worth" (Buffalo Springfield, I think):

1. the fundamentals in basketball ain't that complex; as compared to most other sports, they are downright easy.
a. dribbling: gravity takes care of most of it; the ball drops at an acceration of 32 feet per second; that's pretty fast. The floor, which is difficult to miss (yes?) does most all the work. The trick mostly is to learn how to modulate slowing it down. Then there is learning to pronate the wrist, as opposed to suppinating it (the crucial fundamental in the game). The rest of dribbling is largely for show.
b. shooting. see pronating. The rest is for exploration, with body position and footwork, and moving the ball into shooting position through a variety of paths, for individualized exploration. If you can pronate well, you can shoot. If you can't, good luck.
c. passing. please, a chest pass, a one handed pass, etc. Where's the difficulty here. The possibilities are endless depending on vision (what you can see in your mind's eye before it happens and share with a teammate);
d. catching and receiving: endless possibilities, few of which can be drilled (see parenthesis above).

2. Every guy on the Duke squad has been drilled to tears about the fundamentals of offense. Everyone of them, since they were, at the oldest 12-13, by very high end teachers. Enough already.

3. Hurley had great vision/imagination: so did the rest of the team. It helps when passers and receivers can share such athleticism. The best of this has nothing to do with routinization.

4. Vision/imagination/expanding one's concepts of the possible, can grow; routinization does not facilitate this; it often can be a terrible inhibitor. These things are not "taught," they are "learned" with assistance mostly in the form of creating experiences in which the opportunity for learning is maximized, with occasional insightful inputs from the coach.

By the way, I never advocated that the players could learn just by watching. I think I said that they should hang out with the lax guys, i.e., maybe pick up a stick and see what it's about. Or, they could practice dribbling through their legs, lefty, righty, their eyes closed, two balls at once, all of which I am sure that most all the guys on the Duke team have practiced and many can perform excellently.

Actually, where this post began was simply the development of a theme I have pursued for some time: that the American perspective on basketball can use some freshening up; that it has lost something quite prevalent in the past, that I find very present in the game of soccer and, having watched the lax tourny, in that sport as well.

I close with a line from my favorite Bob Zimmerman song, which Tony S also quoted from in the final episode: "I mean no harm, nor put fault, on anyone, who lives in a vault, but it's alright ma, if I can't please him."

[SilkyJ]

Vision/imagination/expanding one's concepts of the possible, can grow; routinization does not facilitate this; it often can be a terrible inhibitor. These things are not "taught," they are "learned" with assistance mostly in the form of creating experiences in which the opportunity for learning is maximized, with occasional insightful inputs from the coach.


You can experience these things on the basketball court just as easily as on the LAX field or the soccer pitch. Not to mention these guys eat, sleep, breath basketball 24/7/365, just to make minor improvements. Now you want them to forego that very valuable time to go learn a new sport? Why don't we let coach K do what he does best: COACH...afterall to answer mullet man's age old question: thats what JD would do.

[greybeard]

You can experience these things on the basketball court just as easily as on the LAX field or the soccer pitch. Not to mention these guys eat, sleep, breath basketball 24/7/365, just to make minor improvements. Now you want them to forego that very valuable time to go learn a new sport? Why don't we let coach K do what he does best: COACH...afterall to answer mullet man's age old question: thats what JD would do.

Who says that K disagrees with me. And, I did not say learn a new sport. Do football lineman learn to be ballet dancers when they are given ballet experiences to facilitate their footwork. Do they use any of the steps they learn.

What do you know about what K exposes these guys to in order to help them develop their concepts of what is possible? I've seen high end soccer developmental coaches in winter workouts have the young players play a basketball-like version of soccer; passing and catching with their hands, with no dribbling, drop kicking to score.

If K were not interested in the European influence on the game, that is, imo, the soccer influence on the game, then why have Dantonie on the US coaching staff. To tell him the rules?

By the way, there are any number of different things that a coach in any sport can do to create an atmosphere for expansive thinking, vision, call it what you wish, in addition to the simple example I pointed out above. Some people might see these different games as being driven by the desire to develop a specific set of habbits or skills; others like myself might see the objective, or more importantly, the result, differently. From my observations from afar of K's approach to his team, I would have to guess that he facilitates greatly the expansion of what his guys can see. Doing that in the context of having to equip them to deal with the myriad defenses that they will confront, and that they might pose to others, is no easy task. Well beyond anything I could even begin to think of doing.

If you take what I have said any differently, that was not my intent. If I have anything to offer that I think K has not already considered, I can assure you that I would not see posting here as an appropriate vehicle. On the other hand, sharing my perspectives about sport, basketball in particular, with those who post and read here, well, seems to me to be what the board is all about.

[SilkyJ]

If I have anything to offer that I think K has not already considered, I can assure you that I would not see posting here as an appropriate vehicle. On the other hand, sharing my perspectives about sport, basketball in particular, with those who post and read here, well, seems to me to be what the board is all about.

It sure is and I hope you dont think I am trying to stifle you opinions. I am just engaging in discussion and expressing my perspective which can often be summed up as: I trust coach K unequivocally (is that in Throaty's handbook?). If he wants to have the players study or learn soccer/lax or whatever, then I am all for it and you must be wiser than I thought. I doubt coach is doing that, though, as these guys still have plenty to work on regarding basketball, imo. I can see taking the 91/92 team with tons of juniors and seniors who were experienced and "fine tuning" them with exposure to other things because their skills, knowledge of the game/system, and bball IQ were already so refined. I just think these young guys have lots that coach can still teach them on pure bball issues.



If K were not interested in the European influence on the game, that is, imo, the soccer influence on the game, then why have Dantonie on the US coaching staff. To tell him the rules?

Maybe someone can clear this up, but I dont think it Coach K who brought him in. I think it was the USA bball exec committee:

http://usabasketball.com/seniormen/2006/06_msnt_asstcoaches.html

Now let me list why they could have brought him in:

D'Antoni is a recent Coach of the Year recipient and considered to just be a great guy that NBA players like (coach K needs to develop a rapor with the NBA players) Moreover, they might have brought him in as a sort of "spy" because he understands the Euro game and can teach us how to play against it, not necessarily how to play it ourselves.

You certainly could be right, but unless you have something to back it up you are speculating and so am I and there doesnt seem to anything to prove either side...

[greybeard]

It sure is and I hope you dont think I am trying to stifle you opinions. I am just engaging in discussion and expressing my perspective which can often be summed up as: I trust coach K unequivocally (is that in Throaty's handbook?). If he wants to have the players study or learn soccer/lax or whatever, then I am all for it and you must be wiser than I thought. I doubt coach is doing that, though, as these guys still have plenty to work on regarding basketball, imo. I can see taking the 91/92 team with tons of juniors and seniors who were experienced and "fine tuning" them with exposure to other things because their skills, knowledge of the game/system, and bball IQ were already so refined. I just think these young guys have lots that coach can still teach them on pure bball issues.



Maybe someone can clear this up, but I dont think it Coach K who brought him in. I think it was the USA bball exec committee:

http://usabasketball.com/seniormen/2006/06_msnt_asstcoaches.html

Now let me list why they could have brought him in:

D'Antoni is a recent Coach of the Year recipient and considered to just be a great guy that NBA players like (coach K needs to develop a rapor with the NBA players) Moreover, they might have brought him in as a sort of "spy" because he understands the Euro game and can teach us how to play against it, not necessarily how to play it ourselves.

You certainly could be right, but unless you have something to back it up you are speculating and so am I and there doesnt seem to anything to prove either side...

Let me get off the bus. I am advocating nothing for the Duke team. Nada, zero, zip.

My perspective, the principal fault with Duke's inside game, at least last season, was McRob's inability to move to the ball, and the outside guys' inability to see when Zman was coming clear and get it to him early, not late which is what they always did. So, rather than looking for Z to change, my perspective is that the outsider players must change. Am I talking to Kman or the Duke players? Nope. To you.

Second, I believe that basketball training in America, AAU ball and its ilk, is wrongheaded, counterproductive, and, oh by the way, a blight on the high school and college games, and the kids who participate. I believe that young players can grow in their vision, in their understanding of the possible, by a broader exposure to different passing and catching games, and spend entirely too much time "training" to be basketball players and then needing to be "trained" still further in a game that ain't that complex when they reach college, if they ever do. That is what I have been trying to say. I have said it numerous times and in numerous ways. I think it is an important concept. After all, some of you might have kids who are talented in sport, and are being tugged to "specialize", to their detriment, imo.

Now, as for the Phoenix coach, in case you can't tell there is a tremendous soccer influence among the players on his team; their leader, Nash, is the son of a soccer coach. In the offseason, Nash plays very high end amateur soccer in a NY league and also trains on occasion with the red bulls of MLS. Seems to work for him. And, Phoenix does play an extraordinarily International and effective style on offense. BTW, the Internationals have been outplaying Americans for years now, or haven't you noticed. On the other hand, the next time Phoenix stops anybody from scoring will be the first.

The idea that International players are better skilled in fundamentals, ie, dribbling, passing, shooting, is passing ridiculous. They bring something to the table that American players do not. If K is not asking himself what that something is, and not trying to incorporate some of it in his style, I'd be surprised. Could be you are right. I do not know. Colangelo undoubtedly wanted the D man on the squad; you are right, how K choses to use his insights is anybody's guess. You got mine. Yours is?

[SilkyJ]

Second, I believe that basketball training in America, AAU ball and its ilk, is wrongheaded, counterproductive, and, oh by the way, a blight on the high school and college games, and the kids who participate. I believe that young players can grow in their vision, in their understanding of the possible, by a broader exposure to different passing and catching games, and spend entirely too much time "training" to be basketball players and then needing to be "trained" still further in a game that ain't that complex when they reach college, if they ever do. That is what I have been trying to say. I have said it numerous times and in numerous ways. I think it is an important concept. After all, some of you might have kids who are talented in sport, and are being tugged to "specialize", to their detriment, imo.

Now, as for the Phoenix coach, in case you can't tell there is a tremendous soccer influence among the players on his team; their leader, Nash, is the son of a soccer coach. In the offseason, Nash plays very high end amateur soccer in a NY league and also trains on occasion with the red bulls of MLS. Seems to work for him. And, Phoenix does play an extraordinarily International and effective style on offense. BTW, the Internationals have been outplaying Americans for years now, or haven't you noticed. On the other hand, the next time Phoenix stops anybody from scoring will be the first.

The idea that International players are better skilled in fundamentals, ie, dribbling, passing, shooting, is passing ridiculous. They bring something to the table that American players do not. If K is not asking himself what that something is, and not trying to incorporate some of it in his style, I'd be surprised. Could be you are right. I do not know. Colangelo undoubtedly wanted the D man on the squad; you are right, how K choses to use his insights is anybody's guess. You got mine. Yours is?

I think we're kinda starting to agree. I do agree that there is plenty wrong with HS and AAU bball. I don't have an opinion on whether studying soccer/lax or whatever could benefit them, but I do understand what you are saying.

As for D'Antoni: My theory, its just like I said: use him like a spy to learn how to "counter" or play against the Euro game. If D'Antoni knows its strengths, he undoubtedly knows its weaknesses.

Also, its not as black and white as you put it with the Euros outplaying Americans. Don't forget that they have programs where they play together as teams and "gel" and we USED to just throw together a team and send them in play

[greybeard]

I think we're kinda starting to agree. I do agree that there is plenty wrong with HS and AAU bball. I don't have an opinion on whether studying soccer/lax or whatever could benefit them, but I do understand what you are saying.

As for D'Antoni: My theory, its just like I said: use him like a spy to learn how to "counter" or play against the Euro game. If D'Antoni knows its strengths, he undoubtedly knows its weaknesses.

Also, its not as black and white as you put it with the Euros outplaying Americans. Don't forget that they have programs where they play together as teams and "gel" and we USED to just throw together a team and send them in play

We are starting to agree. Couple of points.

D'Antoni is not exactly known for his defensive accumen.

I think the modern game (the international game which is really a retro game to the 50s with modern twists like the J and better athletes) takes defensive dominence out of play. You make stops in spots; you don't dictate by defense except perhaps in what you are willing to give up.

Most pundits say that international players are succeeding in the NBA because they are stronger fundamentally. I think that that implies the ridiculous, unless you include in fundamentals, which I do but I don't believe is true of them, the vision of what is possible. For example, shooting jumpers. IMO, where the Internationals are superior is in knowing, understanding how to tailor their movements to catch and be completely ready; they know when they are not and make choices accordingly. Ergo, they are better shooters. Put everybody on the same spot and ask them to shoot, my bet is that there is no difference between Internationals and Americans in results.

So, while your point is a good one about International play, I do not think that the experience factor will help the Americans most because of "gelling," although gelling certainly couldn't hurt. Where I do think it will help the Americans immeasurably is in becoming familiar with a fundamentally different game, ruled by a different geometry dictated by a different-sized court, with a different-sized lane, and different rules that make the basketball IQs of Americans, the things all great players have, that computer-like ability to assess what is "good" based upon allignments on the floor, very, very unreliable. (you're guarding a guy out front, you have a good shot blocker behind you and you expect that he can easily get "there" only the lane is wider and he can't). Experience playing on the different sized court under the different rules will allow Americans to be able to rely again upon their basketball smarts; right now, playing their game, not ours, creates a terrific disadvantage and has to be most difficult for the Americans to handle.

IMO, of course. BTW, I did try mightily to get these thoughts through to the Kman when he began his gig. Doubt very much if I was successful, or if I was trying to tell him anything he hadn't already thought of. Indeed, my best hope in my efforts told me that it was silly of me to think that K had not; I'm sure my guy was right.