Don't Laugh: Brand or Iverson?

[Derek Bodner]

It is a true statement, and if you doubt it, look at the teams who have won the NBA championship and who they relied on to take that shot

Rick, I hate to say it, but you're wrong on this one.  don't you remember all the times Duncan and Shaq have been relegated to after-thoughts down the stretch.  Two reasons:
1) They're generally worse free throw shooters than guards.
2) They take longer to get into their comfort zone, establish position, be fed the ball, and get a good look.  If they then have to pass out of a double team, this takes even more time.

[rickortreat]

It is a true statement, and if you doubt it, look at the teams who have won the NBA championship and who they relied on to take that shot

Rick, I hate to say it, but you're wrong on this one.  don't you remember all the times Duncan and Shaq have been relegated to after-thoughts down the stretch.  Two reasons:
1) They're generally worse free throw shooters than guards.
2) They take longer to get into their comfort zone, establish position, be fed the ball, and get a good look.  If they then have to pass out of a double team, this takes even more time.

What about Akeem, or Kareem, or Wilt?  What about Moses? What about Shaq with the Lakers?  What about KG last year!? The ball went into Shaq until they fouled him first. They don't foul KG because he makes those shots.

I'm sure you know that most teams that have won the Championship have a dominant inside player.  He may not always be the one to take the shot- Kareem had great teamates, and so did all the others.  But he is always in the game at the end, and if there's a miss, he's there to get it. I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure all of them took that last shot in a game decided by 2 or less.  The key is not that they don't make their free throws, but that they make the shot anyway and maybe get a free throw on top.

Historically, it takes a Center to win it.  Maybe I'm just assuming they took that game winning shot. But there's got to be some reason why those teams won with those players.

[tk76-]

Bill Cartwright, Bill Laimbeer.

You need a HOF center, or a guy named Bill.

[Derek Bodner]

Historically, it takes a Center to win it.  Maybe I'm just assuming they took that game winning shot. But there's got to be some reason why those teams won with those players.

I'm not arguing you need a good big man.  But that doesn't mean they're the guys who took the majority of the game winning shots. 

You can go back to all of those teams you listed and find a similarly dominant wing player.  Wilt had Hal Greer.  Moses had Doc and Toney.  Shaq had Kobe.  Hakeem had Clyde.  Kareem had Magic.  Historically, if you go through the games, these were likely the guys with the ball in their hands at the end of the game.  It's easier for them to create their own shot, it's quicker for them to create their own shot, it's easier for them to create a shot for their teammates, and it's harder to play hack a shaq/wilt against.

[rickortreat]

I just can't remember.  I keep remembering Kareem's sky hook and how unstoppable it was. But you are right that every one of those all-world centers had those players around them.  I don't think they gave the ball to Russel at the end of the game.

The real truth is that the game-winning shot at the end is a rare occurrence.  The game is often decided long before the end of the game.  It's rare that it comes down to the wire between two teams, but those are the most enjoyable ones to watch, and the players that come through are the ones called "clutch".  I thought Iguodala showed some of that with those two shots against Houston, and I also thought that the Brand shot with 4 min. left was the clutch play of the game- why he got that big contract.

I'd like to find a way to do some research to see which plays have been the most successful for these teams in a must score situation. No matter who you have on your team, you go with what is most likely to work.  With a guy like Iverson, you knew he was going to take the last shot, and IMO, that was a liability because they wouldn't give him the call like they did Mike. That made it easy to defend him.  Kobe will get that call at the end, but would Andre? I don't think he has that status yet.

IMO, it still is the smart play to give the ball to Brand or Speights at the end for a must win shot.  Until someone on the team shoots over 60% from the field, I want a high percentage inside shot. Now, If we had Larry Bird....

[Skates]

Let's get Robert Horry and end all of the arguments, thet don't call him "Big Shot Rob" for nothing.   

[RickyPryor]

Not entirely sure how we got to talking about buzzer-beaters...but possession - late - is a valid topic within this general topic.

Buzzer beaters aren't my "thing".  There are (should be) plays designed for all scenarios from :20 and less (:14; :08; :04), and teams go to those plays taking clock into consideration.  The less time, you'll find generally, the deeper the attempt.

But I still argue:  This team has no personality.  Or nearly enough of one.

[tk76-]

The highest percentage shots are those taken in rhythm.  Dunks/layups on the break or off cuts, jumpers that are open and in rhthym and post plays when the guy is set with good position.

That is why it seems strange teams go to isolation at the end of games.  I remember a lot of the game winners for the Bulls came from passes from MJ to open shooters.  MJ also hit some tough shots, but he was Jordan.  

You can't just pound it in the post and expect to score against a defense that is set.  You need the post player to kick out to an open shooter, or a driver draw the dfense to open things up for a post scorer.  

The Sixers have runs some good plays down the stretch using all of their players over the last few weeks:

Iguodala made some great passes to Miller and Thad, Lou has found Speights , Thad has hit some tough hook shots and Iguodala has driven in for dunks/layups all in the last few minutes of tough games.  The more weapons you can go to late in games the harder they are to defend.  You can use guys like Iguodala and Lou to break down the defense, but unless they can get to the cup, I'd rather have them pass once they draw help defenders.

[tk76-]

But I still argue:  This team has no personality.  Or nearly enough of one.

And I still disagree.  Can you maybe be more specific.  By no personality do you mean they lack the singular type stars of past Sixer teams (Wilt, Moses, Dr. J, Sir Charles and AI) or that they are a non-descript bunch that are boring to watch?

When this team is on its game, I find them as exciting as any of the AI teams (I hated slow ball with Snow) and would be more exciting if they could consistently win.  They are not good like some of the exciting old teams, but I think this team winning would be as exciting as any Sixer team.

[RickyPryor]

The highest percentage shots are those taken in rhythm.  

I agree and would take it a step further.  The reason why foul shots yield a much higher percentage than do most every other shot, is that they have been practiced while the player is supremely comfortable.  (There is a subtle 'rhythm' to these as well.)  The highest percentage shots are those perfected while practicing.  If you can create an opportunity for a shot you can make in your sleep THAT'S the shot I want.

That's why most (good) coaches insist on practicing at 'game speed'.  To replicate those situations.  Then, come game day, the players are super-comfortable...and as you say - in rhythm.

Which is why I have never ever allowed a team I coached to screw around pre-game.  No shooting from half-court, etc.  ONLY from spots likely to be encountered during the game.  And the spots are different for everyone.  All other drills are at full speed too.  No walking lay-ups.  After all - when the hell do you see THOSE in games?

[Skates]

I think it can be most properly phrased to say that they are evolving an identity right now.  They are too far from a finished product right now to definitively say what their "personality" is.  The nice thing is that they are so loaded with talent that even as they develop they are a handful to play against.  Many of the Barkley and Iverson era teams had personalities defined by their superstar, but the best of those teams in 2001 really hard more of an all-around lunch bucket defensive personality that Iverson played off of as a virtuoso scorer.  The current team certainly has some clear traits in that they are athletic, they all hustle and they seem to be having fun under DiLeo.  If they can ever learn to defend the three, they would have a dominant defensive persona.

[RickyPryor]

But I still argue:  This team has no personality.  Or nearly enough of one.

And I still disagree.  Can you maybe be more specific.  By no personality do you mean they lack the singular type stars of past Sixer teams (Wilt, Moses, Dr. J, Sir Charles and AI) or that they are a non-descript bunch that are boring to watch?

When this team is on its game, I find them as exciting as any of the AI teams (I hated slow ball with Snow) and would be more exciting if they could consistently win.  They are not good like some of the exciting old teams, but I think this team winning would be as exciting as any Sixer team.

If you look around the league...and a team name pops into your head...a 'personality' usually accompanies it.  Do you not get a different 'feeling' when you think of the Celtics than you do when you think of the Lakers?

Both great teams...different 'personalities'.

The Sixers don't even have an all star.  Not a rookie.  One soph.  No 3-ballers.  No coach of the year.  No recent ring.  No true 'personality' pops into my head...except that of "our team".  The guys we are comfortable watching every night.  Are they worth the price of admission?  Ehhh...dunno.

Some nights.

[tk76-]

They are not great, and lack established stars.

They are a high energy, athletic, fast breaking team.  They are a running team that (tries) to run of of defense.  That is their identity.  When they are winning more, and there young players are in their prime they will be more fun to watch.

[rickortreat]

Ricky has a good point, no identity.  But I agree with the others. They will develop that identity over time, and you can't force an identity on to a team before it's time.

They have a winning formula, but aren't quite there as a team yet.  You can see it when they hesitate or freeze up when the other team makes a run. Either they will find it in themselves to believe they can stop another team, or outscore them, or they won't.

I love watching a young team like this discover itself on the floor.  I enjoy watching them struggle as they overcome past mistakes and develop new ways to win.

You can't expect this team to have an identity yet, it was too fragile before Brand got here, and he hasn't played enough to be a part of their winning just yet.  But if you give it time, I think you will find that the Sixers have an identity at the end of the season. And it won't just be a team that likes to run, but a team that beats you to loose balls, beats you down the floor, and makes you miss a lot. A team that no one will want to face in the playoffs.

[bebopdeluxe]

Ummm...what "personality" do the Spurs have?

How about Detroit when they won it?  Was Billups "personality" - or just a guy who could hit a big shot?

You need a big to give the ball to late in the game...but you also need a guy on the outside who can create space for the big to accept the ball in the post (because you must know where that outside guy is...think Duncan and Manu).  You need an outside guy to handle the ball late in the game...but you also need a guy in the low-post who opposing defenses must respect.  Bigs who attract double-teams late in the game can destroy opposing defenses.

The whole 2001 vs 2009 debate is interesting...I will always have a deep respect for the '01 team, because the run they made was right up there with last season's Phillies and the '85 Villanova run as one of the greatest period of being a Philly sports fan in my life (I guess I would probably have to make room for the '80 Phillies as well).  And while I do not disagree with some of the favorable aspects of the current squad, we should all hope that this team plays with the heart, intelligence and excellent coaching that the '01 team had.

And AI certainly was a "force of nature".

But he's not that guy anymore.  In my mind, he is no longer a truly elite SG...not "Michael Jordan - Washington Wizards"-ish, but a qualitative step down from "force of nature".  Can he finish his career as an impact PG?  With the way this season started off, I was thinking that - for the MLE - he would be great value.  But what I would want from him in that role is not what Ricky has in mind...I would want him to sacrifice his game for the good of the team - and I think that he could do it.

But being back in Philly...trying to win a ring...would he really do it?

And now, with Iguodala finally starting to grow into his role, I'm not sure that I want a PG who will do anything else but be a PG...distribute the ball...play good defense...and a decent 3-point stroke wouldn't hurt.  That is why, if we can't resign Miller, I would consider trading for Hinrich.  Another guy who might fit that role is Delonte West.  I just don't see Allen Iverson as that guy anymore.

And I certainly would not trade Elton Brand to get him.