Summer Quandaries: State Of The Small Forwards

The possibility of an emphasis on a motion offense is a perfect example on the reasons why one shouldn't predict that various Celtics will do based on their games last season. Some may thrive in it. (For example, IF he makes the team, Chris Johnson certainly has the dexterity, and I'm hoping he can improve his penetration game rather than just hanging around in the corner. Someone who always has an eye out for a chance to go to the hoop, such as Evan Turner, could thrive in a motion offense unless he fails to realize that he's not supposed to shoot every time he touches the ball.) Some may struggle with it (Wallace comes to mind, after a season-ending injury, despite his energy game; and mediocre-to-poor ballhandlers such as Bass could also muck up the works). And some could go either way—in particular, two unimportant (sarcasm) guys named Green and Rondo.

The motion offense, as much as anything, is likely to underscore my feeling that the past is not the present. And, IF it's successful, it could go a long way (as could an explosive transition game) in catapulting the Celtics in the direction of eventually becoming more than the sum of the parts.

Sam

Sam

Sam,

how do you see this motion offense that Stevens reportedly will run here working?

I'd be interested in your ideas on how it might work (nuts and bolts stuff) as well as which players fit best into it at each position.

my limited understanding of a "motion offense" is that it relies less on one ball handler and instead on a 'team" concept of ball movement to attack the defense.

if that's the case, Rondo is a lousy fit, as he needs the ball in his hands to be his most effective.

are spot up shooters of high value in this type of offense or are players who can penetrate and move without the ball a better fit?

the one thing I personally have not considered with team personnel is the possibility of a motion offense being the primary driver.

kdp59 wrote:Sam,

how do you see this motion offense that Stevens reportedly will run here working?

I'd be interested in your ideas on how it might work (nuts and bolts stuff) as well as which players fit best into it at each position.

There are multiple types of what could be called a motion offense. Here is a site with more nuts and bolts than anyone could want.

http://www.coachesclipboard.net/MotionOffense.html

kdp59 wrote:my limited understanding of a "motion offense" is that it  relies less on one ball handler and instead on a 'team" concept of ball movement to attack the defense.

if that's the case, Rondo is a lousy fit, as he needs the ball in his hands to be his most effective.

Your understanding is spot on and gets at the core concept of what motion offenses are all about. The only thing I'll add is that it uses both player and ball movement to attack the defense (not just ball movement), but my guess is that you already knew that. Another key is spacing, which creates openings for penetration and passes.

Your observation about Rondo is an excellent one. I don't know if anyone posted this article before (I've been periodically swamped and haven't been able to read every article that's been posted), but this article from last March addresses this exact issue.

http://www.celticsblog.com/2014/3/15/5469908/the-three-laws-of-rajon-rondo-brad-stevens-motion-offense-muse-analysis-sportvu-stats-advanced-nba

I won't post the whole thing here, but here are a couple of snippets to pique your interest.

A motion offense preaches unselfishness, discipline, spacing, constant movement in the form of quick passes, on and off-ball screens, layups, and the three-pointer.

Boston stuck to this system early in the season and had mild success. On January 16th, the Celtics were 14-26, and had just broken a nine-game losing streak. But then something changed; there was a new variable in the form of Rajon Rondo.

...an NBA scout pointed out that both Brad Stevens and Rajon Rondo would have to adjust their styles. In other words, Stevens' motion and Rondo's dominance were not entirely compatible.

"They have to meet in the middle," the scout declared. "Rondo needs to make sure he is able to adapt to a new style of offense. At the same time, Stevens needs to put his best player in a position to excel. If that means amending the offensive sets to cater to Rondo's abilities, then this is what needs to be done."

It's a good read.

kdp59 wrote:are spot up shooters of high value in this type of offense or are players who can penetrate and move without the ball a better fit?

A motion offense needs both, and as many players as possible who can do both. Motion offenses rely on players with versatility. A specialist like Kyle Korver who does only one thing -- shoot threes -- could still have value, but a guy who isn't as good at threes but can drive, pass, finish at the rim, and shoot a 10-footer would be far more valuable.

thanks Outside

I will read them when I have the time later.

Kdp,

Since you asked, my own definition of a motion offense is a strategy that utilizes constant player movement, crisp, usually short, accurate passes, and timely picks (1) to create openings or options that can be seized upon opportunistically by offensive players (either through quick jumpers or drives to the hoop) and (2) to wreak havoc among defenders as they compete with their own teammates for space, struggle to close the aforementioned openings (which can often create additional openings), and engage in disadvantageous switches. In other words, a good motion offense both enables the offense and disables the defense.

Until last year's finals, we haven't seen a lot of the motion offense lately. In the first place, it's a complex undertaking that requires snap decisions, great anticipation, Patience, and an opportunistic mentality. For example, a player who thinks he's got an open shot should have the foresight to anticipate that as little as one more pass could give a teammate a higher percentage shot. The key is that the entire sequence in a motion offense occurs in a very short period of time, which means the defense has a devil of a time getting set unless they "cheat" toward the defensive end when they miss a shot and basically abdicate their offensive boards.

In the second place, I wonder whether the great majority of NBA players have the mental wherewithal to run an alert motion offense. It's not like a set play that succeeds through execution of predetermined roles. It's impromptu, and it's the very spontaneity that is the key to success.

Yes, the motion offense requires players who can spot up and can also take it to the hoop. But the good news is that they don't necessarily have to be fantastic at either skill. The beauty of the motion offense is that it gives the shooter an edge and helps him to perform at his best.

I believe that the epitome of the motion offense—the best I ever saw—was the old weave. There were halfcourt weaves and fullcourt weaves. The halfcourt weave typically had four or even all five offensive players running horizontally in a sort of oval pattern across the court (usually around the top of the foul circle). They'd pass the ball diagonally back and forth as they rotated around the oval pattern. Seldom did the ball travel more than two or three feet. Never did the ball hit the floor. When an offensive player broke loose, he usually had a very good shot opportunity because the defense was rather discombobulated. If four offensive players were involved in the weave, the fifth guy could wait to see how things were unfolding and toss in a pick at the most propitious moment. The halfcourt weave was usually initiated very early in the shot clock to allow maximum time for an offensive player to break loose.

The weave (or, for that matter, the motion offense) was only as good as the willingness of all players to buy into it. In the weave, Cousy ran around and threw two- or three-foot passes like everyone else. He realized that this was the time to sublimate his floor general duties to the faith they all had in the weave. Whether or not Rondo could do that is a question I've asked myself many times. It's always been in the back of my mind that he's a real team player as long as the game is played in his image. I hope that, this season, my observation will prove short-sighted.

I have a home video of the start of a season opener after someone's uniform number had been retired and the usual championship flag had been raised. It might have been Sharman's number, which would have made the game the opener of the 1961-62 season. After the opening festivities, I left my movie camera on despite the fact that the lighting wasn't ideal. Russell won the opening tip, and the Celtics immediately went into the weave. It was like riding a bike or using a rocking chair. No big deal; they just did what came naturally. Finally, they shook Sam loose for a jumper, which he missed. But it was the "business as usual" nonchalance with which they broke into that weave, mere seconds into a new season, that I'll never forget.

The full-court weave was a relative rarity because the weave normally called for horizontal passes, and making horizontal passes while moving downcourt was very improbable without risking back court violations, etc. Besides, it was much less complicated for the Celtics just to grab the outlet pass and (as Jackie Gleason would say) zip, zam, zoom—three quick passes ending in a layup.

I don't know why the weave is almost never used nowadays, although I did see instances when the Spurs (and the Celtics as well last season) used elements of the tactic for a few seconds at a time. Maybe has just gone the way of the hook shot; maybe players (and coaches) consider it beneath them to rely on a play associated with short shorts and a tipoff to start every quarter.

Anyway, I kind of got away from the motion offense, but it was a great sentimental journey for me to think about the weave.

Whether it was the weave or more of a widespread motion offense, the Celtics did it better than anyone then or since. It will probably never be the same for the same reason that team loyalty is pretty much a thing of the past. Players seldom stay together for a motion offense to become a shared instinct whereby they're all on the same wavelength as to the split second to grab an opportunity and exactly how to go about it. But, if the Spurs were any indication, at least glimmers of the motion offense still appear now and then. If Brad could succeed in introducing it to this team, it would probably be both good and bad. Good because, when it works, it belongs in the Louvre. Bad because it's a tough and frustrating thing to perfect.

I do believe that two systemic factors—possibly three—could make the Celtics better than their roster might suggest this season.

The first is a fast-breaking mentality. As far as evaluating players, I've been trying to guess at which players are sure-handed enough and good enough ball-handlers to mount a good fast break. In my opinion, speed is way down on the list as a prerequisite; anticipation, passing ability, and ball-handling are more important.

The ball-handling aspect is where I have the greatest problems. Aside from Rondo (who I'd expect to be the lead guard on most breaks) and Pressey, Smart might be the only wing who I tink could turn into a surehanded ball-handler. And Olynyk among the big guys (now that Humph is gone). If the Celtics succeeded in getting David Lee, he'd be a candidate. I would hope that Jeff Green and Evan Turner might turn into good wide receivers on the break, but I'm concerned about their hands. Bradley may hold the unofficial team record for screwing up the most forays to the basket last season.

The motion offense is the second tactic that could help catapult the team beyond where most people expect it to go this season. Once again, ball-handling could be a deterrent. But throwing fast, short passes usually helps accuracy. And a motion offense would be the quickest method of sorting out the mentally sharp guys from the others. At least constant exposure to a motion offense could be a great vehicle for infusing players with a "pay attention and always expect a pass" mentality.

The third possibility as a boost to the team's performance this season would be judicious use of a full-court press. Not on any kind of regular basis, but using Russell's "Invisible Man" rule that states the threat of an action can be as effective as the action itself. They probably have as athletic team as I can recall in recent years. If they can get into the kind of shape that combines durability with agility and speed, occasional presses could be responsible for gaining an advantage of half a dozen points a game.

Kdp, I hope that, in my longwindedness, you can glean something that will answer your question. We're getting close to the time of year that I love most. Off-season discussions are interesting, but the game itself is one of the greatest turn-ons a person can have.

Go Celtics!

Sam

thanks Outside and Sam for the help there.

from what I gleam, the modern NBA will only see limited use of a motion style offense with today's rules (which seems to promote one on one play and isolation plays, IMO).

Certainly the way the Spurs have played the past few years (which seemed to be high lighted on last years finals) had a lot of quick passing and limited "pounding" of the ball.

Ainges' drafting of high IQ players then fits in with a motion type offense. Sully, Kelly, Smart. Even Pressey I would assume (though I can't help but think he is really an end of bencher in the NBA).


I am even more concerned that Rondo is a lousy fir in that type of offense though. I would think it would be very hard for ANY player to basically change his style of play after being an All-star with his past style. but perhaps it can and will happen.


it should be interesting to see IF Steven's go full bore into some type of motion offense as the primary.

here was some other links I found pertaining specifically to Stevens and his motion offense form Butler:

http://www.hoops-library.com/ncaa11/butler/motion.html


http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1713831-how-brad-stevens-butler-system-translates-to-the-boston-celtics

Kdp,

I don't believe that Rondo lacks the skill to modify his style.  Whether he lacks the mentality or willingness to do so may be another matter.  I just can't get over what appears to be a lack of flexibility on Rajon's part to push the ball on a regular basis; and I don't believe a deliberate approach to the offense is that Brad wants.  I haven't used it recently, but I think the term "Rondocentric" suggests how Rajon views the offense.

I do know that, if I were to see anyone comparing Rondo with Cousy in virtually any phase of the game, I'd be laughing hilariously until the end of my life.

Sam

The motion offense won't be run every single play, though.

Also, you need ball handlers. Guys that aren't going to fumble the pass or dribble it off their knee out of bounds.

The other thing is, we don't know what Brad is instructing Rondo to do. I'm not really making a case one way or the other about Rondo's performance, I'm just saying there's some limited information available.


KJ