Defense Please

[George O'Brien]

The Timberwolves shot 49% inspite of very poor shooting in the third and early fourth quarters. Most of the time Cassell, Sprewell, Hoiberg, and Hudson were wide open. It wasn't like the Suns focused on shutting down KG, because he scored 32.

For all the jabbering about the Suns needing a "go to" offensive player, what the Suns really need is defenders like Jordan and Pippen. D'Antoni is supposed to be a great "offense" coach, but unless he can teach defense, he's gone.

 

[F-Dog]

My question is, did the Suns play mostly straight man D or not?


If they did, then of course they're going to be horrible until they learn what they're doing. Those are just the growing pains that go with completely changing the defense.

If not, then I agree that yesterday's game is a bad sign.

 

[George O'Brien]

Originally posted by F-Dog
My question is, did the Suns play mostly straight man D or not?


If they did, then of course they're going to be horrible until they learn what they're doing. Those are just the growing pains that go with completely changing the defense.

If not, then I agree that yesterday's game is a bad sign.

The Suns were clearly in a full court trap late in the game when their defense melted down. The other problem has been that they are typically slow at extending their defense to guard shooters on transition, which is less about scheme and more about focus.

 

[Errntknght]

The Suns mainly played man-to-man... they switched too freely some of the time but at least they stopped double teaming everyone that touched the ball within 15 feet of the hoop.

 

[George O'Brien]

Originally posted by Errntknght
The Suns mainly played man-to-man... they switched too freely some of the time but at least they stopped double teaming everyone that touched the ball within 15 feet of the hoop.

There were some fairly obvious breakdowns, but yes they did play more man defense especially in the third quarter. But after they got to within 4, the Suns began to press and it was a disaster.

Part of the problem the Suns had was with their switches such as when they banged into each other. There is still no recognition of who are the shooters and both Jake and Amare were out on the perimeter guarding non-shooters rather than getting back to the paint.

I'm sure learning to make correct decisions takes time, but it is frustrating.

 

[elindholm]

I really think the Suns suffer from the shortage of college experience among their key players. A good college coach and program can teach a player a lot about footwork, spacing, and other fundamentals. You have to figure that no one learned much in high school, because any NBA player was a superstar in high school, and generally superstar high school students aren't exceptionally good at listening to their teachers.

Stoudemire has no college experience, Marion only one year, and Johnson only two. Cabarkapa and Barbosa have been playing "professionally" since they were in their teens. But in any professional setting, the schedule is so hectic (and, on average, the players too experienced) for true teaching to take place. It takes an enormously committed and savvy coach to tell NBA players anything they don't already know, and obviously D'Antoni doesn't qualify.

I know some people on this board think that Voskuhl is a fundamental disaster, but in fact he is the only Sun who boxes out reliably, and his footwork under the basket, on either end of the floor, is really pretty good. And sure enough, Voskuhl was in college for all four years, at a very good program (UConn). Similarly, Jacobsen is reasonably sound from a fundamental standpoint -- heck, it's the only reason he's even in the league, since he's not an athlete.

Youth is great, but with youth comes ignorance. Right now, the Suns' problems stem a lot from the roster's collective ignorance. I hope they'll learn, but it's hard to see when they'll have time and who will be in a position to teach them. Most of the roster has a long, long way to go.

 

[F-Dog]

Originally posted by elindholm
It takes an enormously committed and savvy coach to tell NBA players anything they don't already know, and obviously D'Antoni doesn't qualify.

Obviously?

I wouldn't even say that Frank Johnson was obviously not qualified to teach basketball fundamentals to his players. Plus, the Suns collected all of these well-known assistant coaches in the first place in order to 'develop' their young players; what exactly goes into 'development' if the basic fundamentals of the game aren't involved?


I don't know which "enormously committed and savvy coach" you're talking about, either. Jerry Sloan? (What a great job he's done on DeShawn Stevenson, right?) Which youngsters has Larry Brown developed? How about Phil Jackson?

As I see it, it takes a long, long time for talented young basketball players to get good. The basic difference between the Suns and fundamentally savvy teams is that the Suns' youngsters get to learn on the court, too, while many other teams' immature players are stuck to the bench.

 

[SweetD]

This is the problem with the NBA a team is forced to pick a player in the draft based on potential and athleticism. Not how quickly they can fit in and play.

 

[elindholm]

Well, we'll just have to see how it goes. It's pretty unusual for players to "develop on the court." Some develop automatically as they mature, but it's hard to say whether that happens any more effectively when the player gets game time.

Zach Randolph went from getting 10-12 minutes a game last year to 35-40 this year, all of a sudden. And it isn't that he got better as last season progressed, or that he started slow this year and then got used to the increased load. He was a little-used, sporadically effective bench player for a year, and then, poof, he was a star. It seems like if he was "developing" through all of his playing time, the transition would have been more gradual.

Most of this board (including me) wanted to see playing time for Tsakalidis, Ford, Trybanski, Archibald, Koturovic, Lampe, or whoever, so that those players could "develop." Maybe it works that way and maybe it doesn't. Most of the players on that list have shown by now that they won't be able to cut it. Would extra "development" on the court have helped? I doubt it.

Anyway, in this case we're talking about players who have already done their developing. Marion has been an All-Star. Stoudemire won Rookie of the Year and was the MVP of the Rookie/Sophomore game. Johnson is nearing the end of his third season in the league, having averaged 30 or so minutes per game (I don't feel like looking it up) since his rookie year. Is increased playing time, by itself, going to teach them anything?

 

[F-Dog]

Originally posted by elindholm
Well, we'll just have to see how it goes. It's pretty unusual for players to "develop on the court."

I would say the exact opposite--most 'established' players keep developing as they get older. That's why I think so many people are frustrated with Shawn Marion; even with his age and experience, they expect to see continued progress from him, and it's not readily apparent.

Zach Randolph went from getting 10-12 minutes a game last year to 35-40 this year, all of a sudden. And it isn't that he got better as last season progressed, or that he started slow this year and then got used to the increased load. He was a little-used, sporadically effective bench player for a year, and then, poof, he was a star. It seems like if he was "developing" through all of his playing time, the transition would have been more gradual.

I think that part of it is that the transition was more gradual than it appeared (Randolph was fairly polished even before, and he still has holes in his game now), but part of it may be that PT is overrated as a development tool.

At some point, though, I think that a player isn't going to keep improving if he's not being counted on to produce on the court. Zach Randolph is a good example, and so is Joe Johnson. Most of the Suns' players aren't at that point yet--for instance, I think Amare would be improving rapidly with or without playing time--but it's hard to argue that PT actually hurts them.

Most of this board (including me) wanted to see playing time for Tsakalidis, Ford, Trybanski, Archibald, Koturovic, Lampe, or whoever, so that those players could "develop." Maybe it works that way and maybe it doesn't. Most of the players on that list have shown by now that they won't be able to cut it. Would extra "development" on the court have helped? I doubt it.

I think that part of what we wanted was a chance to keep scouting them--none of us can see them when they're not in the game, and all of them were (or are) question marks that might have possibly affected the future of the franchise.

The main thing for me is that I hate to see the minutes wasted on players like Googs or Howard Eisley, but I admit that there might not be any more useful options...

 

[George O'Brien]

This is actually a very interesting debate and I'm not sure I have decided one way or another. My preliminary observation is that playing time is very important for learning some things and not very important for learning others.

The big advantage to giving young players playing time is that it forces them to deal with issues much more quickly and it exposes problems that might not be as apparent in practice. It is also important to play against a lot of different yet talented performers.

On the other hand, "fundimentals" are almost always best taught in practice. Individual elements of the game from footwork, boxing out, passing, etc. can be drilled until they are second nature. Having the coach yelling at the player during the game does not actually teach much.

In general I am undecided because I can see both sides.

 

[sly fly]

Can you say "Developmental League".

If Stern would get his mind off expansion and start trying to develop all of these youngsters...

What's the downside?

Make the draft 5 rounds. Have each team allocate 8-9 players. Have them play on the same night/arena as the "Varsity" (perhaps 4 hours before).

An NBA roster would be reduced to 9 actives, while the other players are ready for call-up.

Buy a "Varsity" ticket and get into the "JV" game for free.

The NBA Channel/ESPN can pick up rights to these games, thus giving players exposure.

Your Kwame Browns, Josh Howards, Ndubi Ebis, or Darko Millicics are playing and getting VALUABLE court time, instead of languishing on the IL or end of the bench.

Nah... couldn't happen. It doesn't make money for the NBA.

 

[George O'Brien]

Originally posted by sly fly
Can you say "Developmental League".

If Stern would get his mind off expansion and start trying to develop all of these youngsters...

I'm not sure a JV team would get the job done. A real developmental league would play fewer games and practice a lot.

I'm pretty sure it is not the money. My suspicion is that the players union opposes it because the teams would reduce the number of regular roster to players from 12+3 down to 11. That is up to 120 players who would not longer be in the NBA. Even though it would benefit veteran players, they have rarely focused on the good of the sport.

 

[sly fly]

Originally posted by George O'Brien
I'm not sure a JV team would get the job done. A real developmental league would play fewer games and practice a lot.

I'm pretty sure it is not the money. My suspicion is that the players union opposes it because the teams would reduce the number of regular roster to players from 12+3 down to 11. That is up to 120 players who would not longer be in the NBA. Even though it would benefit veteran players, they have rarely focused on the good of the sport.

Tough bananas for those 120. I'm talking about for the betterment of the youngsters. They do no good rotting on the bench.

So, they play fewer games? They're still getting actual gametime they wouldn't have gotten otherwise.

C'mon, George... work with me here.

 

[Joe Mama]

I don't think Zach Randolph is a very good example. He tore it up in his first summer league, and I contend that on a size starved team like the Phoenix Suns he would have made an immediate impact. I also think that while real game playing time for young guys might make for some ugly play it is the best way for players to learn and develop.

Joe Mama

 

[George O'Brien]

Originally posted by sly fly
Tough bananas for those 120. I'm talking about for the betterment of the youngsters. They do no good rotting on the bench.

So, they play fewer games? They're still getting actual gametime they wouldn't have gotten otherwise.

C'mon, George... work with me here.

I agree with you. I'm just saying why I think there seems to be no movement for it. But who knows, maybe you can start a campaign.

 

[elindholm]

I don't think Zach Randolph is a very good example.

Probably not, but I was pressed for time and he was the best I could come up with at the moment. You know what I mean anyway.

 

[George O'Brien]

Zach Randolph seems to be a case of a player who was behind some fairly good established players. Last year the Blazers had Sabonis (15.5 minutes), Dale Davis (29.3 minutes), and Sheed Wallace (36.3 minutes) on the inside. Randolph played 16.9 minutes a game.

None the less, he put up respectable numbers last year: 8.4 ppg 51.3% shooting, and 4.5 rpg. This year he is playing over 39 minutes a game and his numbers went up proportionately: 20.8 ppg, 48.1%, 10.9 rpg.

Some guys stats per minute stay constant when they play more while others decline. Zach is one whose numbers scaled up.