Speaking Of No Adjustments!

If this isnt an Iso play for Bird, I dont know what is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoGmMx8Ejrw&feature=related

Bird got the ball with about 6 seconds left, and shot within 1.5 seconds. This is not the isolations we see with Pierce. Not even close!

sdcelt

PP is carrying us.

jeb65, we are talking about the end of quarters, halves, and game's end. The other night we saw Rondo hit a clinching shot. Other Celtics are more than capable to hit these shots.

It takes team discipline, movement, and strategy to be consistently successful with critical possessions. Pierce is a great player, but many more times than not he and the Celtics have not been successful with isolations during these situations. I don't have a myriad of videos to support this, but believe me it is true.

We can argue this all year, but there is a better way, and for the Celtics' sake I hope Doc begins to be a whole lot more creative.

And with this comment, I have exhausted my thoughts on this particular subject. I am much like Sam: no one will ever convince me that there is a substitution for player and ball movement, given more than a few seconds to work with. These are professional basketball players here. Allen and Garnett are future hall of famers. Let's be a little more creative!

mrkleen

Is that the best you could come up with?

Bird has the ball in his possession about 2 seconds period!


Not even close to what I am looking for and not even close to what goes on today in iso.

He did not stand outside with the ball and wait for the clock to tick down. He worked to get position w/o the ball established it and then got it from a teamate then in about 2 seconds took a fade away. Certainly he was isolated on that man. But you can't double a man that does NOT have the ball. And heck in this case it didn't matter anyway.

beat

beat wrote:mrkleen

Is that the best you could come up with?

Bird has the ball in his possession about 2 seconds period!


Not even close to what I am looking for and not even close to what goes on today in iso.

He did not stand outside with the ball and wait for the clock to tick down. He worked to get position w/o the ball established it and then got it from a teamate then in about 2 seconds took a fade away. Certainly he was isolated on that man. But you can't double a man that does NOT have the ball. And heck in this case it didn't matter anyway.

beat

I agree that Michael Jordan was really the first player I can remember that ran the typical, modern iteration of isolation play.....with 4 players spread out and him at the top of the key running the clock down. But that Bird play above IS an iso play, and it was the kind of thing that was run for him all the time at the end of close games. Is it like the modern day Iso? No. I absolutely concede that point. But in the end, it makes no difference.

This debates sounds like a bunch of old guys crying about the good old days or nickle loafs of bread and 10 cents for milk. Those days are OVER, this is the new NBA. Like it or not, that is how it is.

Just be thankful that the Celtics only do this in small doses at the end of close games. We could be fans of the Lakers or Cavs - where they iso all night long, every night.

Mrkleen

That Bird play is ISO OFF the ball, not with it. And that is rarely seen now either. But then Bird has been retired for a bit too.

And I see nothing wrong with an old guy thinking things were better back then (80's and before), cause I truly believe the game WAS better.

And really are not about 1/2 of Field Goal attempts today iso to a great degree?

beat

Hey fellas, I think we're getting caught up in semantic differences here.

What Mrkleen presented is a set play. Larry went to the spot well in advance. As the announcer said, "The Celtics cane down and executed beautifully." He specifically said, "Celtics" (plural) because it was a planned play covering 13 seconds and involving multiple players. Moreover, Larry scored off an ASSIST (which implies anythinb BUT isolation).

Technically, every time a player shoots the ball, he is in "isolation." There is only one person touching the ball when it's launched, not one or two "helpers." Nobody's standing on someone else's shoulders (although it's an interesting thought).

But the kind of "isolation" that bugs many people (including me) occurs when one player retains possession of the ball over a considerable period of time, has opportunities to involve others, and passes up those opportunities in favor of creating a play for himself. And, when the same player does it rather habitually and deliberately, I'd call "isolation" his "style." I don't like that style of play.

It could be argued that there are some teams that are so think in talent that they have only one player worthy of shooting. Perhaps that's occasionally true; but try to tell me that the predictability of that approach doesn't give the defense a HUGE advantage against that team.

About the only time a player like Sam Jones or John Havlicek would shoot under MY definition of "isolation" (as opposed to being set up with a defined play) would occur when they'd launch a quick one on a fast break and they knew a Celtic was under the basket with a good shot at an offensive rebound.

That sort of thing occurred within the the team concept of what I call "volume offense" (get up shots early and often in the shot clock); and it wasn't really in "isolation" because of the teammate waiting under the basket and (usually) the guy who had passed the ball to the shooter.

So, at the risk of belaboring, what I mean by negative "isolation" is the deliberate (and usually habitual) tendency of a given player to ignore opportunities to pass to others in favor of retaining the ball for unusually prolonged periods in order to create a shooting opportunity for himself.

Sam

Sam

Agree but I do think the era of isolation at the end of quarters, games, ect was really ushered in by Mr. Jordan. ( but even with him their are times he sets up teamates AKA Paxson )

beat

I dont disagree with what you guys are saying, but I happen to like the modern NBA too.

The players are miles more athletic, the game play is up and down and lots of fun to watch, and I think the best teams are just as solid as any from the past.

Overall, watching Oklahoma City vs. Golden State - with one on one plays over and over all night, can get annoying. But then again, some of those old time teams (and when I say old time, I mean the 80s) were like watching paint dry.

I dont really think we are disagreeing here. I just think it is a matter of you guys arguing for what used to be (and probably was better), and me saying "this is the way it is, so we need to deal with it and make the best of it."

If one drops the question of "how it is/was"...

What is more effective?

I would tend to go more towards a set play or at least a pick and roll or something. Not just plain one on one.

mrkleen

athletic- a term used when a player has few fundamental skills.

IMHO

beat

Beat...

I think the old time teams and players were great....and I think the average player in the NBA in the 1960s or 70s was probably better than the average player on the end of the bench these days.

And I think the fundamentals of the stars back then would keep them in the running as stars in any era. But honestly, the modern NBA player - is so much more physically imposing and gifted, it isnt even close IMO.

You dont think that Kobe, Carmello, Pierce, LeBron - would physically dominate in the 60s and 70s?

These modern players would eat those guys from the past up from a physical standpoint.

Doesnt mean they are better, or in the end that Lebron or Kobe would win as much as the old timers. But asking Sam Jones or Jerry West to guard Paul Pierce or Kobe Bryant is a total physical mismatch.

Mrkleen,

Always an interesting debate...but one that too often falls short of the real nub of the matter.

Presumably, if the players of the 60s were in their primes today, they'd be just as athletically gifted as today's players. They were equally human and as subject to conditions of their times as today's players are.

Conversely, if the players of today had been in their primes 40 years ago, they'd have been college grads and more grounded in the basics. But they'd have been shorter, slower, and more glued to the floor.

In other words, it's not fair to make all the comparisions just from the perspective of today's world as we know it.

Now let's address this athleticism thing head-on. In exactly which ways are today's players better athletes? Maybe they run a little faster (although Sam Jones and Bill Russell in their primes could flat-out outrace anyone now in the NBA). Maybe they are a little taller on average. Maybe they jump a little higher. Maybe they have more bulk per inch of height. Of course, none of that necessarily makes them better players because there are many people who can run fast, be tall, jump high, and be stocky who can't play a lick of basketball.

Was there any way in which the players of the 60s were athletically superior to today's players. Absolutely.

1. Endurance. A large proportion of those players could run indefinitely (and did so on most possessions) and never display the endurance weaknesses I constantly see these days; and the greater average depth of those teams
allowed them to shuttle in fresher players too. In terms of energy expenditure, playing 36 minutes today is arguably the equivalent of playing 24 minutes in the 60s.

2. Toughness. Players were routinely bludgeoned in the 60s, and there was no such thing as a flagrant foul. "Let 'em play" was a frequent mantra for the refs. You NEVER saw players of the 60s driving and flailing their arms in deliberate attempts to draw a foul. They went straight up, with elbows on the ready to take care of any impediments along the way. Today's players tend to be more chiseled. Yesterday's players tended to be more rawboned. Not one of today's big men (not a single one) would have wanted to spend 10 minutes on the court with Bob Petit (perhaps the single toughest basketball player I've ever observed on the floor). But yesterday's big men were forced to play against Petit, and many of them succeeded quite well against his toughness and other great attributes.

So all this bull (I mean conjecture) about superior athleticism is based on selective factors. Incidentally, in your player comparisons based on "overpowering," you do know that Paul Pierce is a forward and Jerry West and Sam Jones were guards, right? I'd be excited to watch Sam's speed and agility against Kobe any time...because Kobe would also have to guard Sam. Sam routinely went up against Oscar Robertson, whom I'd also like to see play Kobe, and Sam played West a lot too. He didn't stop them (no one did), but he very often outscored them, and he always made them labor for their points. As for Pierce, Havlicek would give up two inches to him and would be absolutely ideal to cause Paul all sorts of problems in his iso game.

As for winners and losers, if players of the 60s met players of today on a neutral court (that is, negating the effects of genetics, science, rules changes, the Collective Bargaining Agreement, whatever), here's what I think it would come do to.

Which era featured physical abilities and skill sets more consistent with the style of basketball favored in that era?

For example, what good does it do to have a high-flying trapeze act if you're going to stand around holding the ball half the time? What good does it do to have speed if you're going to walk the ball up more often than not? How congruous is team defense with players who struggle with the fundamentals? Big deal to swat a shot out of bounds; I'll take Russ's more cerebral blocking technique, almost always resulting in a possession for his team, any day.

Conversely, playing a volume offensive game, with constant uptempo and fairly constant fast-breaking was just perfect for players with endurance. And, on the defensive end, toughness and endurance could overcome height and jumping ability by (1) moving players beyond their favorite range (as Russ routinely did with a much taller and much
heavier Wilt) and (2) physically wearing them down by making them work like dogs for every point they got.

So, when the comparisons are examined without the implicit bias that only today's ground rules and conditions should apply, the more "perfect storm" (matching player attributes to extant playing philosophies) belongs to the sixties.

Absent the effects of non-basketball factors (genetics, science, blah blah blah), which era featured players who were/are more skilled practitioners of the game of basketball? Who constantly played the game as though wind-aided. Who created on the run. Who considered turnovers a sin rather than a snack. Who believed in one another as much as in themselve. Who gave no quarter and expected none.

Don't let it be forgot
That once there was a spot
For one brief shining decade known as
Roundball Camelot

Sam

I would pay to see Pierce vs Hondo,I stated in another thread years ago on the old site that Magic Johnson couldn't handle Havlicek defensively,that Hondo would outquick him and run him into the ground and that if any player could neutralize and make Magic work defensively it would be Hondo,similar to how Pippen and Jordan played him.Overall Hondo could win that matchup because he could defend Magic better than Magic could defend Hondo.Well I think Pierce would do a better defensive job than Magic and at the same time struggle to keep up with Hondo,nobody used picks off the ball like Hondo,I think he wrote the book on it.However seeing Pierce torch the Lakers and Kobe over the years,just too strong for Kobe,the great Hondo would give him some trouble,but he could still get his too,either way its compelling theater.

I think Cowens and Sam both make good points in saying that the best players are best suited for their era.

I dont see Kobe or Lebron being able to keep up with Sam Jones in an up and down, fast breaking game.

But Lebron would take Sam Jones or John Havlicek in the low post and absolutlely punish them...and whether they would be up for fast breaking after getting pounded on by Pierce or Dwayne Wade for 4 quarters remains a question that no one could really answer.

Good discussion none the less.

Actually the more I think about it Pierce can get his on Kobe,Igoudala no problem,they're two of the most freakish athletic of todays players....he also could give Hondo some real trouble.

Mrkleen

of course todays athelets are far superior in many ways to those of the 50's, 60's and 70's for the same reason that world records from those days are long gone too.

But as Sam as said put those men in their prime today and they would match up very well, and personally I think they would probably win more times than not.

beat

This story line always seems to come around for discussion every 6 months or so.

There is no doubt that the players of today are physically more gifted than players 30 or 40 years ago but that is called evolution (within our lifetime) But it cannot be a legitimate source of comparison. Every era has it's great players, but a group of players from one era are not necessarily better than a group of players from another.

dboss

Mrkleen,

Once again, Lebron is either a SF or a PF. Sam Jones was a GUARD. Sam Jones would not be guarding Lebron. Let Lebron try to abuse Jim Loscutoff down low. Loscy would carve #23 on Lebron's face.

It's all about the team, not about individual matchups. Comparing player with player assumes that the current model (toward iso basketball) would govern the way they'd play. That always seems to be the assumption among people who favor current players, and it's absolutely invalid and unfair.

If forced to be on the move constantly (which would be the case on defense against the older teams), Lebron's or Kobes tongues would be hanging out of their mouths. See what would happen to their explosiveness with no legs. They're now known as excellent defensive players because half of their defensive time is spent standing around as the offensive team stands around.

Forget the withering fast breaks of the past (which I guarantee they would not be forgetting). The motion and ball movement in the halfcourt offenses would have Kobe and Lebron thinking "buzzsaw."

There's a huge difference between (1) being able to rest until the offensive team finally gets a shot off after 22.5 seconds and (2) running all over the place and banging into picks for 10-15 seconds and then having to transition into your own offense. A lot of these guys' alleged athletic superiority is abetted by the fact of the amount of "recovery time" they enjoy in an ironically more sedentary game.

Sam

Dboss,

You're right. Most of these comparisions are not comparisions of basketball players. They're comparisions of general evolutionary factors (human and scientific), which have nothing to do with the basic capabilities of basketball players—except that the older players used what they had to work with FAR better than today's players do.

Sam

MrKleen

I'm with you on this issue.
Here are 8 reasons why I believe that the Players--teams starting about 1979-80 are better than those of the 50's and 60's.

1.Players are bigger and faster
2.Have the benefit of indoor facilities through out the year.(YMCA's)
3.Summer basketball (AAU ball)
4.Size of coaching staffs
5.Technical advances in video scouting and teaching
6.The International player
7.Athletic skills
8.Blacks

swish

Sam wrote:Mrkleen,

Once again, Lebron is either a SF or a PF. Sam Jones was a GUARD. Sam Jones would not be guarding Lebron. Let Lebron try to abuse Jim Loscutoff down low. Loscy would carve #23 on Lebron's face.

I would be willing to buy a lot of what you said in this thread, but I have got to call you on this one...sorry Sam.

I have heard the legend of Jungle Jim, but lets get real here. There is no way Jungle Jim would be able to deal with the physicality of Lebron James, not in a million years. Luscutoff was 6'5"/ 220 - Lebron is 6'8"/ 250 with 5% body fat. If you are talking about a fist fight, or throwing elbows or something - that is fine.

But on the basketball court, no way no how...sorry.

LeBron is NOT 5% bodyfat, neither should he be. That is not a good % to be at for a sport like basketball.

Bodyfat % is one of those numbers the media just throw around.

Swish,

My point exactly. Which of the things you listed relates to the ability to be an exceptional practitioner of the game of basketball (as compared with being a commentary on scientific advances)?

Sam