Author Topic: How small can we legitimately play?  (Read 1133 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

How small can we legitimately play?
« on: May 25, 2016, 11:39:55 AM »

Offline jpotter33

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 47760
  • Tommy Points: 2904
I know this isn't a popular topic right now after OKC beating up a small-ball team, but how small can we legitimately play next year?

Let's say that we don't sign any of the major free agents this year, but we do get some combination of Okafor, Butler, and Biyombo (on an Amir-type contract) via trades or free agency.

This isn't as much of a problem with Okafor, because we'd ultimately have KO as the 4 next to him.

But what if we trade for Butler while keeping Crowder and Bradley? Could we play a lineup like this full-time:

PG: IT, Smart
SG: AB, Turner
SF: Butler
PF: Crowder, KO
C: Amir/Biyombo

Many claimed that if we got Barnes from Golden State, he'd ultimately slot in at the 4 next to Crowder at the 3, which isn't too terribly much of a difference size-wise than this proposed lineup. That's still probably a top-3 offense, but you're going to have mismatch problems against some teams and rebounding issues as a general concern.

What do you think? Is this a legitimate roster for a top-2 or top-3 team in the East? Are we a better team with this lineup than last year?

Re: How small can we legitimately play?
« Reply #1 on: May 25, 2016, 12:09:35 PM »

Offline PickNRoll

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1691
  • Tommy Points: 199
Adding a guy like Jimmy Butler obviously makes the team better, but not because we can go smaller.  Crowder at the 4 is a gimmick.  That's not to say it can't work in small doses.  Just like Stevens using zone defense for 3 possessions, then switching back regardless of how the zone worked.  The scouting and coaching is so good that you need wrinkles.  They know your schemes, know your tendencies, know your plays.  Stevens would try anything if he thinks it could be disruptive.   Still waiting to see Smart at the 5.  :)

Re: How small can we legitimately play?
« Reply #2 on: May 25, 2016, 12:15:45 PM »

Offline Who

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 47114
  • Tommy Points: 2401
PG: IT, Smart
SG: AB, Turner
SF: Butler
PF: Crowder, KO
C: Amir/Biyombo

What do you think? Is this a legitimate roster for a top-2 or top-3 team in the East? Are we a better team with this lineup than last year?

Yep, that lineup will work. Top 3 team in the East looks a good bet. Maybe top 2.

Edit: I would prefer to start KO at PF and use Crowder off the bench as a PF/SF.

I like having that size in the starting lineup and I think guys like Crowder are easier to use as an undersized quick PF when they get a better mix of matchups against mostly 2nd unit guys and then some time later in the game against starters (to close games).

I think that would make better use of those mix of players.

Re: How small can we legitimately play?
« Reply #3 on: May 25, 2016, 12:17:02 PM »

Offline greece66

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7395
  • Tommy Points: 1342
  • Head Paperboy at Greenville
I know this isn't a popular topic right now after OKC beating up a small-ball team, but how small can we legitimately play next year?

Let's say that we don't sign any of the major free agents this year, but we do get some combination of Okafor, Butler, and Biyombo (on an Amir-type contract) via trades or free agency.

This isn't as much of a problem with Okafor, because we'd ultimately have KO as the 4 next to him.

But what if we trade for Butler while keeping Crowder and Bradley? Could we play a lineup like this full-time:

PG: IT, Smart
SG: AB, Turner
SF: Butler
PF: Crowder, KO
C: Amir/Biyombo

Many claimed that if we got Barnes from Golden State, he'd ultimately slot in at the 4 next to Crowder at the 3, which isn't too terribly much of a difference size-wise than this proposed lineup. That's still probably a top-3 offense, but you're going to have mismatch problems against some teams and rebounding issues as a general concern.

What do you think? Is this a legitimate roster for a top-2 or top-3 team in the East? Are we a better team with this lineup than last year?

We can play p small. People often forget we were one of the smallest, if not the smallest team in the NBA in 2015-16. We had made a thread on this some time ago.

The thing is that GSW has short bigs, but their guards are pretty tall.

Re: How small can we legitimately play?
« Reply #4 on: May 25, 2016, 12:24:07 PM »

Offline Endless Paradise

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2853
  • Tommy Points: 182
The only guy who's undersized in Golden State's starting lineup is Draymond; literally every single other player, including Steph, is above the mean height for their position.

Re: How small can we legitimately play?
« Reply #5 on: May 25, 2016, 12:27:07 PM »

Offline jpotter33

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 47760
  • Tommy Points: 2904
The only guy who's undersized in Golden State's starting lineup is Draymond; literally every single other player, including Steph, is above the mean height for their position.

But essentially that's what small-ball refers to, i.e. smaller, quicker bigs. It's not generally meant towards guards and swing guys, because there's much less, if any, advantage to going small at those positions.

And that's specifically what I was referring to, as well. We're not necessarily small by choice in the guards and swing spot, because we would love to have bigger guys there.

Re: How small can we legitimately play?
« Reply #6 on: May 25, 2016, 12:33:00 PM »

Offline greece66

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7395
  • Tommy Points: 1342
  • Head Paperboy at Greenville
The only guy who's undersized in Golden State's starting lineup is Draymond; literally every single other player, including Steph, is above the mean height for their position.

But essentially that's what small-ball refers to, i.e. smaller, quicker bigs. It's not generally meant towards guards and swing guys, because there's much less, if any, advantage to going small at those positions.

And that's specifically what I was referring to, as well. We're not necessarily small by choice in the guards and swing spot, because we would love to have bigger guys there.

well yes, if we added a good SF to our roster Crowder could play the 4 more often.


Re: How small can we legitimately play?
« Reply #7 on: May 25, 2016, 12:46:23 PM »

Offline PaulP34

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 702
  • Tommy Points: 39
I know this isn't a popular topic right now after OKC beating up a small-ball team, but how small can we legitimately play next year?

Let's say that we don't sign any of the major free agents this year, but we do get some combination of Okafor, Butler, and Biyombo (on an Amir-type contract) via trades or free agency.

This isn't as much of a problem with Okafor, because we'd ultimately have KO as the 4 next to him.

But what if we trade for Butler while keeping Crowder and Bradley? Could we play a lineup like this full-time:

PG: IT, Smart
SG: AB, Turner
SF: Butler
PF: Crowder, KO
C: Amir/Biyombo

Many claimed that if we got Barnes from Golden State, he'd ultimately slot in at the 4 next to Crowder at the 3, which isn't too terribly much of a difference size-wise than this proposed lineup. That's still probably a top-3 offense, but you're going to have mismatch problems against some teams and rebounding issues as a general concern.

What do you think? Is this a legitimate roster for a top-2 or top-3 team in the East? Are we a better team with this lineup than last year?

I like this line. Butler would take a lot of pressure off Crowder, Bradley, and Isaiah. Adding Butler would bring the offense into the next phase. We really need these young guys to develop. That's what I think is holding us back.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2016, 12:52:41 PM by PaulP34 »

Re: How small can we legitimately play?
« Reply #8 on: May 25, 2016, 12:47:47 PM »

Offline PaulP34

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 702
  • Tommy Points: 39
Butler would be expensive and I don't know if Danny would be willing to part with more then this years draft picks for him. And I don't think Chicago let's him go

Re: How small can we legitimately play?
« Reply #9 on: May 25, 2016, 04:27:36 PM »

Offline OHCeltic

  • Brad Stevens
  • Posts: 239
  • Tommy Points: 17
Don't need to play small just play physical Warriors are getting beat up. Old Celtic style. Love it

Re: How small can we legitimately play?
« Reply #10 on: May 25, 2016, 04:35:56 PM »

Offline Evantime34

  • NCE
  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11942
  • Tommy Points: 764
  • Eagerly Awaiting the Next Fantasy Draft
I like the idea of playing as small as possible, but I think if we give Crowder starter level minutes at the 4 then he will break down. The reason that Golden State didn't play their death lineup more in the regular season was because they are worried Draymond would get worn down.

While the narrative might be that Thunder beat the Warriors by beating them up, what the Thunder actually did was out-small Golden State. The Ibaka, Durant, Roberson, Waiters, Westbrook lineup has killed the Warriors death lineup and further shown how small ball can be deadly.

DKC:  Rockets
CB Draft: Memphis Grizz
Players: Klay Thompson, Jabari Parker, Aaron Gordon
Next 3 picks: 4.14, 4.15, 4.19

Re: How small can we legitimately play?
« Reply #11 on: May 26, 2016, 11:53:28 AM »

Offline Endless Paradise

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2853
  • Tommy Points: 182
While the narrative might be that Thunder beat the Warriors by beating them up, what the Thunder actually did was out-small Golden State. The Ibaka, Durant, Roberson, Waiters, Westbrook lineup has killed the Warriors death lineup and further shown how small ball can be deadly.

Well, this actually misses the key point behind why the Thunder's small lineup has been more effective: it's not actually small. They're running out a lineup that's bigger than Golden State's Death Lineup at every position save for shooting guard, but just as fast and more athletic, neutralizing many of the Warriors' advantages. They're "out-smalling" the Warriors by putting out bigger players - including two seven-footers - who can run that style. They're not going as small as possible; they're actually doing the converse while not sacrificing anything relative to the Death Lineup.

The Warriors' one advantage at this point with that lineup is in shooting and with the way the Thunder are playing defense, that makes them entirely reliant on being able to get good looks. Without that, the lineup just can't work; they can't outrebound the Thunder's small lineup and they're not able to get good looks at the rim because their defenders can keep up with them.

Re: How small can we legitimately play?
« Reply #12 on: May 26, 2016, 12:01:29 PM »

Offline clevelandceltic

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 583
  • Tommy Points: 30
Does that team advance us any further? Im not sure.

Re: How small can we legitimately play?
« Reply #13 on: May 26, 2016, 12:07:56 PM »

Offline TheSundanceKid

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2493
  • Tommy Points: 199
IT, Bradley, Smart, Hunter, Crowder. Our own death lineup