gumbomoop
08-14-2012, 01:01 PM
K’s glowing comments re Lebron [“… he's the best leader, he's as smart as anyone playing the game right now"] have led me to think again about what attributes make basketball players great, or even very good. Also what makes them fall short.
I’m inclined to divide these attributes into two broad categories: physical skills and intuitive skills.
………………………………..
I’m more interested in the latter, but let me comment first on physical skills, in order to emphasize what seems to me an undervalued skill. The default question - “Can he shoot, pass, rebound, play D?” - focuses on physical skills. Maybe the default question often also includes “How good is his handle?” I hope so, as for my money, handle is the single most valuable physical skill, especially for perimeter players, but increasingly for all but back-to-basket 5s.
Far too infrequently, IMO, a player’s footwork is an afterthought. I think of footwork as a good example of an underappreciated physical skill that depends, too, on something intuitive, but I’m unsure what that intuitive thing is, exactly. It has something to do with hand/eye/foot coordination, right? Help.
Casey Sanders needed help, big time, with his footwork. I realize it was his bad hands that garnered lots of commentary, but I always thought it was his feet that messed him up. Or rather, the disconnect between his brain and his feet, for when he received the ball, he rarely knew which was his pivot foot. This led him into a myriad of pretzel-poses, and falling down.
Mason Plumlee has worked on his footwork, and has needed to. As with Casey, Mason is a graceful guy when running down the court. As long as he avoids traffic, his athleticism is marvelous, so marvelous that Jay Bilas marveled a lot during Mason’s first two seasons. But gradually Jay toned it down re Mason, for sensible reasons. Mason’s play, in actual games, has best been [or at least in a single post last year was] described by none other than Wheat, who described Mason’s play as “bulky.” I was struck by that insight, for it captured the surprising lack of fluidity in the game of an athlete who at times looked like he should have been so smooth. [Another one of you posted a fine analysis of Mason-in-trouble-in-traffic -- maybe you remember who you are, and would be willing to repeat your solid analysis of Mason’s footwork-woes when in traffic.]
Speaking of smooth, let me use Harrison Barnes’s physical skills to segue to intuitive skills. Barnes is a fine player with a sweet jumper. He possesses plenty of physical skills, but at the college level his anticipated greatness did not materialize, despite plenty of good performances. How come?
Barnes lacked some important intuitive skills. It’s hard for me to tell whether Barnes did not sufficiently develop the intuitive skills of court-sense and decision-making because he simply wasn’t asked or required to do so at UNC. Discounting the Drew-interlude, once Marshall took over, he, well, took over. He showed lots of court-sense and decision-making, mostly associate with his wonderful passing. But in any case, he had the ball in his hands a whole lot. He got the ball to Henson and Zeller in good shape, time after time. Got it to Barnes, too, for great jumpers. But Barnes kind of became a cog in a well-oiled O-machine, rather than a go-to guy, which, on a few occasions, clearly irritated him.
Barnes also lacked what I think of [comparable to the importance of handle as a physical skill] as the single most important intuitive attribute: relentlessness. Relentless: think Moses Malone, Jordan, West, Robertson, Bird, Magic, Kobe, and now, I guess, LeBron. At the college level, think Thomas Robinson, Antawn Jamison, Kidd-Gilchrist, Shane, Jon Scheyer, Hansbrough.
Also think Aaron Craft. And contrast him to Barnes. I wondered on another thread how come the gurus missed on Craft, and have tentatively concluded that his unimpressive physical skills led gurus to miss his outstanding intuitive skills: his relentlessness most of all, but also his court savvy, decision-making on both O and D, active hands and footwork. [In fact, it’s Craft’s superb footwork that leads me to think footwork (and possibly other physical skills) isn’t (/aren’t) purely physical. Still, it seems odd to talk about court-sense as a physical skill, so I’ll stick with the distinction until corrected by friendly and unfriendly amendments.]
Anyhow, Craft isn’t particularly “noticeable” as a “talent.” From the same HS class, 2010, as Barnes, Craft arrived at OSU with somewhat fewer expectations than Barnes was being saddled with. But Craft became a great college player, and Barnes didn’t. Why? As noted above, maybe, and ironically, Barnes was simply overshadowed by the presence of a great, great passer, whose great passes made Zeller and Henson potent O-weapons, thus depriving Barnes of a few opportunities per game.
But IMO what held Barnes back, and what makes Craft so good, are intuitive skills, and especially relentlessness. There’s more important irony here, both because Craft doesn’t at first “look” relentless; and especially because Barnes did, and intended to, “look” relentless. Roy Williams observed something to the effect that “Harrison Barnes is the most driven player I’ve ever coached.” But Roy misjudged Barnes’s “driven-ness,” for it wasn’t “natural”; it wasn’t intuitive. It was faux-cerebral, calculated, part of Barnes’s fascinating plan to become a brand. Barnes was less driven, less relentless, than he wanted to be seen as being. I mean all this not as a commentary on Barnes’s shallowness, but as a matter-of-fact observation on the artifice rather than intuitiveness of Barnes’s approach to the game. Roy’s observation is what Barnes wanted to be observed, and it’s undoubtedly how Barnes saw himself; he fooled himself as much as he fooled others. Barnes’s relentlessness was a shadow of the real thing, the outer shell, the husk, of the actual, substantive thing. [There’s probably a “fairer” way of putting all this, one that employs both softer and more accurate words to describe ….. what I’m trying to describe…. Again, help.]
Maybe Barnes will become the relentless player that his intensely-cool, hyper-focused demeanor portends. But for actual, substantive, effective relentlessness, watch Aaron Craft. His physical strength doesn’t seem to match his rosy cheeks. [Maybe that’s why the gurus missed on Craft.] But his court-sense, decision-making, footwork and quick hands on D are all remarkable. He thinks about angles, about absorbing elbows and hips from high-screens, about the rhythm of the opposing guard’s dribble, about whether he can risk doubling-down and still get back if the pass comes back out top. He seems driven by the smallest of details. Like Shane.
Craft is “as smart as anyone playing the [college] game right now."
I’m inclined to divide these attributes into two broad categories: physical skills and intuitive skills.
………………………………..
I’m more interested in the latter, but let me comment first on physical skills, in order to emphasize what seems to me an undervalued skill. The default question - “Can he shoot, pass, rebound, play D?” - focuses on physical skills. Maybe the default question often also includes “How good is his handle?” I hope so, as for my money, handle is the single most valuable physical skill, especially for perimeter players, but increasingly for all but back-to-basket 5s.
Far too infrequently, IMO, a player’s footwork is an afterthought. I think of footwork as a good example of an underappreciated physical skill that depends, too, on something intuitive, but I’m unsure what that intuitive thing is, exactly. It has something to do with hand/eye/foot coordination, right? Help.
Casey Sanders needed help, big time, with his footwork. I realize it was his bad hands that garnered lots of commentary, but I always thought it was his feet that messed him up. Or rather, the disconnect between his brain and his feet, for when he received the ball, he rarely knew which was his pivot foot. This led him into a myriad of pretzel-poses, and falling down.
Mason Plumlee has worked on his footwork, and has needed to. As with Casey, Mason is a graceful guy when running down the court. As long as he avoids traffic, his athleticism is marvelous, so marvelous that Jay Bilas marveled a lot during Mason’s first two seasons. But gradually Jay toned it down re Mason, for sensible reasons. Mason’s play, in actual games, has best been [or at least in a single post last year was] described by none other than Wheat, who described Mason’s play as “bulky.” I was struck by that insight, for it captured the surprising lack of fluidity in the game of an athlete who at times looked like he should have been so smooth. [Another one of you posted a fine analysis of Mason-in-trouble-in-traffic -- maybe you remember who you are, and would be willing to repeat your solid analysis of Mason’s footwork-woes when in traffic.]
Speaking of smooth, let me use Harrison Barnes’s physical skills to segue to intuitive skills. Barnes is a fine player with a sweet jumper. He possesses plenty of physical skills, but at the college level his anticipated greatness did not materialize, despite plenty of good performances. How come?
Barnes lacked some important intuitive skills. It’s hard for me to tell whether Barnes did not sufficiently develop the intuitive skills of court-sense and decision-making because he simply wasn’t asked or required to do so at UNC. Discounting the Drew-interlude, once Marshall took over, he, well, took over. He showed lots of court-sense and decision-making, mostly associate with his wonderful passing. But in any case, he had the ball in his hands a whole lot. He got the ball to Henson and Zeller in good shape, time after time. Got it to Barnes, too, for great jumpers. But Barnes kind of became a cog in a well-oiled O-machine, rather than a go-to guy, which, on a few occasions, clearly irritated him.
Barnes also lacked what I think of [comparable to the importance of handle as a physical skill] as the single most important intuitive attribute: relentlessness. Relentless: think Moses Malone, Jordan, West, Robertson, Bird, Magic, Kobe, and now, I guess, LeBron. At the college level, think Thomas Robinson, Antawn Jamison, Kidd-Gilchrist, Shane, Jon Scheyer, Hansbrough.
Also think Aaron Craft. And contrast him to Barnes. I wondered on another thread how come the gurus missed on Craft, and have tentatively concluded that his unimpressive physical skills led gurus to miss his outstanding intuitive skills: his relentlessness most of all, but also his court savvy, decision-making on both O and D, active hands and footwork. [In fact, it’s Craft’s superb footwork that leads me to think footwork (and possibly other physical skills) isn’t (/aren’t) purely physical. Still, it seems odd to talk about court-sense as a physical skill, so I’ll stick with the distinction until corrected by friendly and unfriendly amendments.]
Anyhow, Craft isn’t particularly “noticeable” as a “talent.” From the same HS class, 2010, as Barnes, Craft arrived at OSU with somewhat fewer expectations than Barnes was being saddled with. But Craft became a great college player, and Barnes didn’t. Why? As noted above, maybe, and ironically, Barnes was simply overshadowed by the presence of a great, great passer, whose great passes made Zeller and Henson potent O-weapons, thus depriving Barnes of a few opportunities per game.
But IMO what held Barnes back, and what makes Craft so good, are intuitive skills, and especially relentlessness. There’s more important irony here, both because Craft doesn’t at first “look” relentless; and especially because Barnes did, and intended to, “look” relentless. Roy Williams observed something to the effect that “Harrison Barnes is the most driven player I’ve ever coached.” But Roy misjudged Barnes’s “driven-ness,” for it wasn’t “natural”; it wasn’t intuitive. It was faux-cerebral, calculated, part of Barnes’s fascinating plan to become a brand. Barnes was less driven, less relentless, than he wanted to be seen as being. I mean all this not as a commentary on Barnes’s shallowness, but as a matter-of-fact observation on the artifice rather than intuitiveness of Barnes’s approach to the game. Roy’s observation is what Barnes wanted to be observed, and it’s undoubtedly how Barnes saw himself; he fooled himself as much as he fooled others. Barnes’s relentlessness was a shadow of the real thing, the outer shell, the husk, of the actual, substantive thing. [There’s probably a “fairer” way of putting all this, one that employs both softer and more accurate words to describe ….. what I’m trying to describe…. Again, help.]
Maybe Barnes will become the relentless player that his intensely-cool, hyper-focused demeanor portends. But for actual, substantive, effective relentlessness, watch Aaron Craft. His physical strength doesn’t seem to match his rosy cheeks. [Maybe that’s why the gurus missed on Craft.] But his court-sense, decision-making, footwork and quick hands on D are all remarkable. He thinks about angles, about absorbing elbows and hips from high-screens, about the rhythm of the opposing guard’s dribble, about whether he can risk doubling-down and still get back if the pass comes back out top. He seems driven by the smallest of details. Like Shane.
Craft is “as smart as anyone playing the [college] game right now."