lots of talk about a Celtic trade coming soon on NBA TV last night

mrkleen09 wrote:

dboss wrote:
Kleen

We are watching the same game.  We just happen to see things differently.  But a closer look tells me we are in fact seeing the same things.  The biggest single difference is one that we should agree on.  Centers and Power Forwards stretch the floor with more regularity.  PG's that distribute but also score a lot of points is not new.  Forwards that handle the ball, create and score is not new.  40 years ago Don Nelson coined point forward to describe the way Paul Pressey played.  You have heard of Bob McAdoo.  He was a stretch 4  back in 72.  He was a killer shooting the deep ball.  Michael Jordan played PG for almost an entire season.  He was a shooting guard.   1, 2 and 3 are doing the same things they have always been doing.  Some that have multi positional flexibility can interchange what they do and who they play on defense but that is not a new concept.  

The single most significant change to functionality of players and what they do is at the center position.  Every other position is doing the same things they have always done.  Larry Bird Was a point forward with his ball handling and passing skills.  He was also a wing as well as a big.  

I never looked at what they did as positionless basketball.  I always looked at it as players with a multi-skill set.

Point Guards, shooting guards and small forwards are not outdated.  PF and centers are not outdated.  They are still doing the same things except centers are stretching the floor.  Go pull any stat.  I have yet to see any stats for positionless basketball.  I can find stats for all 5 positions that show productivity in a lot of areas.  A 6' 2" PG can never be a 7' center and 7' center cannot check most PG's on the perimeter.  Why because they would be out of position.

Basketball is not under going a positionless revolution. Basketball has transitioned into a 3 point shooting contest and the only position that has changed in terms of functionality is the center position.  

Picking out a few transcendent NBA players over the course of the last 40 years...does not prove anything.  In fact, the key word there is FEW.  This was not the norm before the last 15 or so years.  Now EVERY team is stacked with players who are interchangable.  

The fact that you dont see this change doesnt mean it isnt happening.  It is happening with or without your approval or acknowledgment.

Here are some quotes from Brad Stevens himself:

“We’re not playing in the day and age where we’re numbering all of the guys, what position they are. We’re gonna have all those guys out there at once, and hopefully be very versatile.”

https://celticswire.usatoday.com/2018/09/24/brad-stevens-and-boston-celtics-focused-on-shift-towards-positionless-basketball/

The new era of the NBA requires versatility to win, and the Boston Celtics are adjusting.

"I don’t have the five positions anymore," Celtics coach Brad Stevens said, "It may be as simple as three positions now, where you’re either a ball-handler, a wing or a big.  "It's really important. We've become more versatile as the years have gone on."

The idea of positionless basketball has come to the forefront with the Golden State Warriors, who have dominated teams with their ability to play small ball. While Stephen Curry is considered the point guard, he can also easily play off the ball with his scoring ability just like Klay Thompson, Kevin Durant, Andre Iguodala and Draymond Green do.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2720250-brad-stevens-says-celtics-have-3-not-5-positions-now

https://www.boston.com/sports/boston-celtics/2018/05/02/the-celtics-are-using-positionless-basketball-to-slow-the-process

What Day and Age do you think they are talking about?
What New Era of the NBA do you think he is talking about?
What does he mean by "...as the years have gone on"?  

Again, if hearing it from the horses mouth isnt enough, nothing I can do to persuade you.

Kleen you simply have made another weak argument.  So how can I be persuaded?

There are only 2 players that I can think of who could be characterized as position-less players.  Players that could play all 5 positions. Those players are Magic Johnson and Lebron James. How can you have position-less basketball when coach Stevens said he sees 3 positions.    Position-less basketball cannot happen unless you have a roster of 5 guys named Lebron James.

The only thing new is how the center is used.  Please tell me with your wealth of knowledge how has the other 4 positions have changed?  

I think you are confusing the non-existent position-less basketball fallacy with the new style of play where teams spread the floor and open things up for drives and kicks or simply pass the ball around the perimeter to get open 3 point looks including the center.  To me that is a change in style and has no relationship to the traditional functions of 1-4.  

Having multiple players that can play two positions like the Celtics have is a long long way from position-less basketball.  When Baynes went down could one of our wing players or point guards play center?  Of course not  because they are in fact position centric.

Relating to the trade discussion for this season, I believe that the Celtics need some additional help at the center position, but the biggest issue is getting the team that we have to play much closer to their potential than they have showed so far this season.

That is the only move I see Danny making, and I believe it would be someone who has been bought out by their team and was appealing enough to go after.  For a while last year it looked like Monroe was a good deal, but he ended up sitting on the bench for the playoffs and was not important enough to try to sign for another year. Yet, he did land in Toronto. I have no idea what minutes he is playing but he is on their bench for security.

dboss wrote:
Kleen you simply have made another weak argument.  So how can I be persuaded?

There are only 2 players that I can think of who could be characterized as position-less players.  Players that could play all 5 positions. Those players are Magic Johnson and Lebron James. How can you have position-less basketball when coach Stevens said he sees 3 positions.    Position-less basketball cannot happen unless you have a roster of 5 guys named Lebron James.

The only thing new is how the center is used.  Please tell me with your wealth of knowledge how has the other 4 positions have changed?  

I think you are confusing the non-existent position-less basketball fallacy with the new style of play where teams spread the floor and open things up for drives and kicks or simply pass the ball around the perimeter to get open 3 point looks including the center.  To me that is a change in style and has no relationship to the traditional functions of 1-4.  

Having multiple players that can play two positions like the Celtics have is a long long way from position-less basketball.  When Baynes went down could one of our wing players or point guards play center?  Of course not  because they are in fact position centric.

Its clear to me and anyone else objectively reading this exchange that you dont understand what positionless basketball is and refuse to acknowledge the fact that countless basketball experts have written volumes about it. Constantly using a false definition to declare it doesn't exist shows your lack of understanding.

Aron Baynes or LeMarcus Aldridge have nothing to do with the overall trend in the sport. From Youth Level to NBA, this is the way it is going.

I presented you with quotes from Brad Stevens himself, talking about his philosophy, of developing a team with interchangeable skillsets - yet you are sticking to your story that it doesnt exist? That says it all man.

A simple Google Search returns myriad results, from the highly reputable sources in sports talking about the positionless revolution.  

Sports Illustrated:  https://www.si.com/nba/2017/07/05/ap-bkn-summer-league-positionless-players

NBA/ Lakers:  Positionless Basketball of Tomorrow Is Lakers Today
https://www.nba.com/lakers/news/the-point/180227-position-less-basketball-of-tomorrow-lakers-today

NBA Math (analytics website):  Welcome To The NBA Blooming Era Of Positionless Offense
https://nbamath.com/inside-out-welcome-to-the-nbas-booming-era-of-positionless-offense/

NBA / Raptors:  Raptors Nurse Considering Ultra Modern Positionless Lineup
https://www.sportsnet.ca/basketball/nba/raptors-nurse-considering-ultra-modern-positionless-lineup/

The fact that you dont understand what positionless means, doesnt mean it isnt happening.  It is right in front of you in black and white.  

Let me know if you need a few more links, there are about 16 million of them.

Plenty of room for a valid discussion concerning opposing opinions on this issue.

https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/9w4jbi/smallball_and_positionless_basketball_may_be/

swish

Kleen

You have enough reference material to publish a thesis but I am not sure it would make it through any challenge round.

Apparently you are unable or unwilling to to answer a simple question that I asked you.  Instead you keep posting links even though some of them actually contradict the notion and fallacy of position-less basketball.  So here is my question one more time.

First can we agree on one clear dynamic change from a positional perspective?  The center position has changed dramatically.  The old school low post behemoth has been replaced by centers that play on the perimeter on offense where they take 3 point shots, set high screens and dribble to the rack when possible.

Other than the obvious change in how the center functions how has positions 1-4 changed?  Just answer that question if you can.  

Secondly you keep pounding away at this issue and you keep using quotes from Brad Stevens to support your claim that Position-less basketball exists yet Brad says he has consolidated 5 positions down to 3 positions.  Those are specific positions therefore position-less basketball is a fallacy.  You can call a PG a ball handler but it is still a position.  Point guards have not vanished.

You can call a SG a wing but they are still a shooting guard.  The wing is still a position.  You can call a center or a PF a big but a big is still a distinct position.  Position-less basketball cannot and will not exists as long as you still have very distinct positions that are associated with functionality.

dboss wrote:Kleen

You have enough reference material to publish a thesis but I am not sure it would make it through any challenge round.

One person is posing articles that explain what Positionless Basketball means and how it is taking over the NBA.  The other says Positionless Basketball does not exist.  I think you are confused about which of our arguments would fail a challenge.

But let me take a different tact and give you the benefit of the doubt.  

dboss wrote:
First can we agree on one clear dynamic change from a positional perspective?  The center position has changed dramatically.  The old school low post behemoth has been replaced by centers that play on the perimeter on offense where they take 3 point shots, set high screens and dribble to the rack when possible.

Yes, I agree with a few exceptions, about your description of the changes to the on the modern center position.  Modern Centers have changed.  So have modern guards and forwards.

You use examples of a few exceptional, transcendent players like Magic, Bob MacAdoo, Don Nelson to prove your point that versatile players have always existed.
 
The point is they were the EXCEPTION, not the rule.  Exceptions dont prove a case.

dboss wrote:
Other than the obvious change in how the center functions how has positions 1-4 changed?  Just answer that question if you can.

If you read any of the reference materials you so easily mocked, you would find the answer.  In fact, all you have to do is WATCH modern basketball to get the answer.  Literally EVERYTHING about positions 1-4 has changed.

In the past it was VERY rare to find the PG as the leading scorer - his first job was to distribute the ball.  
Now it is very common to find PG leading the team in scoring.

In the past, it was VERY rare to find someone other than PG leading the team in assists.  
Now that is also very common.

In the past it was VERY rare to find forwards who could bring the ball up and then effectively distribute the ball, run pick and roll etc.  
Now nearly every SF and lots of PF can do this.

In the past it was VERY rare to find a SG or SF who could guard a PF or PG.  
Now I can give you a list of players ON EVERY TEAM that can do this.

You need only look at the Golden State Warriors at the poster child for this movement.  

Steph Curry is not the leading assist man on the team, that distinction falls to the PF, with the SF (who is 6' 11" -  as the number two assist man)
Shawn Livingston who is listed at 6'9" is one of their best post players.
Andre Iguodala, Draymond Green, Kevin Durant, Klay Thompson - can all guard 3 or even 4 positions on any given possession.  

That NEVER happened in the old NBA.

dboss wrote:
Secondly you keep pounding away at this issue and you keep using quotes from Brad Stevens to support your claim that Position-less basketball exists yet Brad says he has consolidated 5 positions down to 3 positions.  Those are specific positions therefore position-less basketball is a fallacy.  

This is what proves you dont understand what positionless basketball means.  NO ONE.  Not me, not Brad Stevens, not any of the articles I posted ever said that Positionless Basketball means that there are not positions.  That is your false literal interpretation of the word "positionless"

Positionless Basketball means that MOST players on the roster and on the court at any given time have interchangeable skillsets and can flip flop across what were old definitions of positions.  Positionless means = no more ONE POSITION players with skills limited to the traditional definition of a position.

That PGs can regularly crash the boards and post up, while the SF or PF can run the offense.  
That Centers can be the best three point shooter on the court and you can have a 6' 9" SG, who can also guard the post from time to time.  
That all 5 men can run motion offense, hit threes, and guard 3 or 4 positions.  

That is what positionless means - it does not mean on any given night you still do not have the need for a big center or a crafty PG.  It means ON PAR teams are more versatile and interchangeable than ever before.

dboss wrote: Position-less basketball cannot and will not exists as long as you still have very distinct positions that are associated with functionality.

This is what you are missing in a nutshell.  No one said you dont ever need big men to crash the boards or PGs to lead the fast break, it says if you have people who are good at those things - they better also be good a lots of other things.  The concept says that the skillset of the average NBA player in 2019 is much more varied and interchangable than ever before.

I dont see how anyone can watch the modern NBA game and look at NBA rosters and not see the days of one position players are numbered.  As the years go on, teams (at every level) will fill more and more slots on their rosters with versatile, multi skilled players who do not have a set position.  THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF POSITIONLESS BASKETBALL.

The things that you mention are not new.

The revolution will not be televised

Celts have a history of multiple position players.

I see nothing new here Kleen. I agree that the skill set for centers is more versatile but guys playing 1-4
Have been doing the things you mention for years.

dboss wrote:The things that you mention are not new.

The preponderance of the evidence and experts from AAU to NCAA to NBA say otherwise.

What is the nba's official definition of positionless as it relates to this discussion ?

swish

swish wrote:What is the nba's official definition of positionless as it relates to this discussion ?

 swish

I found it - no need to look further.

Per mrkleen

"Positionless Basketball means that MOST players on the roster and on the court at any given time have interchangeable skillsets and can flip flop across what were old definitions of positions. Positionless means = no more ONE POSITION players with skills limited to the traditional definition of a position."

swish

For many many many years NBA players have been able to walk and chew gum at the same time.  Traditional position designations still remain despite the multi-skilled abilities of players.  PG's have always been able to score although their main function was to distribute the basketball.  That is still their main function.  They always rebounded but Centers and Forwards remain the predominant source of rebounds.  

PG's are scoring more now than ever before.  I think the main reason is the evolution of the 3 point shot.  The PG's have the ball in their hands most of the time so they get the most 3 point shots and their scoring averages have increased over the years as a collective positional group.

Nothing I see is about position-less basketball.  20 years ago centers and Power forwards led the NBA in rebounding.  20 years later it is the same thing.   Your top 10 rebounders  are centers or power forwards.

The style of the game has changed however and the single biggest impact has been the 3 point shot.  The biggest adjustment from a positional standpoint has come from only the center position where they have abandoned post offense for perimeter shooting.  Motion offenses are designed to keep the ball moving so anybody may be open for the a shot.  But the motion offense is certainly not a new basketball concept.  

The Multi skills of  players 1-4 have not really changed but the evolution of the modern athlete has.  Quicker, faster, longer and stronger.  The style of play has changed because of the 3 point shot and the analytics that are driving it forward.

I stand by my beliefs that the only position of the 5 that has changed is the center position.

I think the most interesting aspect, aside from the stretch 5 evolution has been how the SF is now being utilized in multiples.  We are seeing 2 and 3 playing together at the same time.  That change has come about so that defenses can switch more effectively.  But that change is not an example of position-less basketball.  It is an example of using multiple players of the same size and length together.  It may very well be the clearest example of why position-less basketball does not exist.  Afterall you will not see PG's, PF and Centers of 3's on the court together for defensive purposes.

Just for the record - the idea that playing multible positions back in the early years was a novelty - is just plain not true and my memory of those early years have been confirmed by a little research.
Back in 1962-63 the nine teams had 74 players that played at least 1000 minutes that year and 42 played at least 2 positions while 32 played one position. Then in 1968-69 there were 14 teams with 113 players that played at least 1000 minutes - and 66 played at least 2 positions while 47 played only 1.

swish

Swish your research confirms what I already knew.  I do appreciate your ability to share information like this.

I think that the notion of today's game being so-call position-less is really more related to the style of play.  Back in 58-59  Cooz dished out over 9 dimes per game and stilled scored almost 20 points.

The game has changed since then a lot but some staples remain like the give and go or the pick and roll.  The Celtics moved the ball quite a bit back them. The 3 point shot has changed the game.  

I did a little research myself on the impact of three point FG on the Celtics likelihood of wining.  They shoot on average 32% in losses and 39% in wins.  On average they are 12-36 in their 15 loses and 15-37 in 23 wins.  

Analytics control the way the game is being played.  We have heard rumblings about adding a 4 point shot.  How about moving the 3 point line further back.  It would force teams to shoot more midrange shots and have a post offense as part of their weaponry.  But there is no room to move the corner three further back without widening the playing floor so instead you could change a corner 3 pointer to 2.5 points.

Final score Boston 120.5 opponent 120...Boston wins yippie!

And here's a position comparison on scoring - 1962-63 vs 2017-18 - based on a minimum of 1100 minutes per game and minimum of 15 pts per game.

1962-63 - 9 teams, total of 23 players,,, 5 centers, 11 forwards and 7 guards met the above requirements
2017-18 - 30 teams,total of 63 players,,, 8 centers, 22 forwards and 33 guards met the above requirements
1962-63 - Guards were 30.4% of the top scorers
2017-18 - Guards were 52.4% of the top scorers
When it comes to scoring - The 3 pointer has taken the play to the outside.

swish

Even the great teams of 1985-86 had guards that were scoring at a rate similar to the 1962-63 teams - as their guards were only accounting for 33.3% of the top scorers. The 3 pointer had not yet had much of an impact

swish.

Ah crap. I feel the need to add my 2 cents. Don't you hate when that happens?

Positionless basketball is an ideal that has been pulled off successfully a couple of times in NCAA ball, and once that I can think of in the NBA.

Because somebody realized that big guys can actually shoot and maybe put it on the floor may have changed center/forward play, but that's about it.

Guards and small forwards have occasionally been homogenized into "wings," yeah, wonderful. Position-less basketball is mostly a myth IMHO.

OK, now, this thread was about a Celtic trade coming soon...

I can certainly see it happening. Not for a big name, however, but for a big or two that can defend and board, contributing to the second unit or playing a situational role. I can see Boston keeping the cost to a draft pick and a body on the roster.

Should we target DeAndre Jordan? His $23M contract is up this year. His frito % is now over 70%.

worcester wrote:Should we target DeAndre Jordan? His $23M contract is up this year. His frito % is now over 70%.

See Cuban/Mavs doing everything they can to keep him, centers like that don’t grow on trees, having said that I would sign him in a second, only 30, I think he has another good 4-5 years easily. How would you clear room to sign him?

worcester wrote:Should we target DeAndre Jordan? His $23M contract is up this year. His frito % is now over 70%.

No.  What does The Time Lord not do, at this age, that DeAndre Jordan did when he was Williams' age?  Other than shoot fritos at 70%, which is more important for a player who averages 31mpg like Jordan than for a player who barely gets in the game, what does DeAndre Jordan do now that Williams can't do?  And Williams is doing it for about 7% of the price.

Replace Baynes, neutralize Williams' development, completely undermine our ability to resign our young'uns who will be coming up for renewal within a year or two because Jordan has eaten up our salary cap space just to bring in a still only 2-dimensional player who is only 15 months younger than Horford?  Again I say, No.  


bob


.

I have to see more from Timelord, can he rebound and stay healthy? Does he have durability issues? if we make a deep playoff run and he shows he can be that guy....then I agree with you bob, DeAndre has always been a load, wish we had gotten him as a rookie.

dboss wrote:Celts have a history of multiple position players.

I see nothing new here Kleen.  I agree that the skill set for centers is more versatile but guys playing 1-4
Have been doing the things you mention for years.

Havilicek was ahead of his time, in his era was the first multipositional positionless all star player....

Kleen there is a lot of positionless basketball concepts being used, but only a very few do it at a John Havlicek, Larry Bird, Scottie Pippen/Clyde Drexler level. That’s what makes the Warriors so great, they have a team that set the bar with concepts/strategy and players versatile and talented enough to play that way. Durant, Draymond, Igoudala can all do so many things both ends and it seems so many times when Warriors are putting game away, Steph is moving without the ball thru mazes of screens playing a game of catch me if you can, then bombing away, but like a sniper. A lot of teams don’t have the full package of players to play that way and look stupid trying, like the Charlotte Hornets....bad positionless ball is a bunch of tweeners like Jeff Green and Marvin Williams who can play, but no where good enough to win. You still need traditional players doing traditional things, like bigs defending the paint and rebounding the ball well enough, then you can break the molds and have fun.

Keiiy Olynck was the new brand versatile big who couldn’t defend or defend his position for shit. In the old days they would call him soft, now types like that are called stretch 4-5’s, but his game while able to adapt to new concepts ultimately does not effect winning enough for obvious reasons, which is why I will always take a Perk type over a girlie man big.