Author Topic: Ball Handlers, Wings, Big (and swings?)  (Read 5018 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Ball Handlers, Wings, Big (and swings?)
« on: July 21, 2017, 08:01:29 AM »

Offline Vermont Green

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11223
  • Tommy Points: 860
So I get that there is new jargon coming from Brad Stevens on how he thinks about players rather than the traditional 5 positions.  What I am not clear about is how many of each are on the floor for an ideal line up?  Is it:

1 Handler
3 Wings
1 Big

or

1 Handler
2 Wings
2 Bigs

I believe that the ball handler is pretty much the same as a traditional PG, wing = SG or SF, and a big = PF or C.  A swing is a SGSF/PF combo and there are still traditional combo guards that can play the traditional PG and SG (not sure what they are called in the new jargon).

I think you need two bigs on the court or at minimum a big and a swing.  I don't think you need two handlers, I would prefer more wings, but not the end of the world to have two ball handlers. 

Here is my starting line up based on the new jargon (I ended up with the same line up with the old jargon):

Thomas (Ball Handler)
Hayward (Wing)
Crowder (Wing)
Morris (Big or Swing)
Horford (Big)

I consider Morris big enough to be the second big.

I am curious what people think regarding line ups, not necessarily specific players but what combination of these new jargon roles is the best.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2017, 10:03:20 AM by Vermont Green »

Re: Ball Handlers, Wings, Big (and swings?)
« Reply #1 on: July 21, 2017, 08:47:49 AM »

Offline saltlover

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12490
  • Tommy Points: 2619
The number of players on the court can change.  That's sort of the point with having more categories.  Sometimes there will be two ball handlers, occasionally 3, other times one.  There could be 0-2 bigs, and between 1-4 wings (maybe even 5 if a couple of them are capable ballhandlers.)

Stevens has vacillated between breaking what we call wings into two subcategories -- wings and swings.  In this definition, guys like Marcus Morris, Jae Crowder, and last year Jonas Jerebko would be swings -- perimeter players on offense who can guard wings and bigs on defense.  Last year's prime example of a wing was Bradley -- this year, Hayward is one also.  Stevens now has a lot of bigger wings, even in his wing/swing subcategory, so even tho Hayward and Brown won't match up on bigs on defense, they're capable of switching onto them for short stretches.  Accordingly, this year the wing/swing definition will be much more muddled, because they're all the same size.

I don't think there's any "best" combo.  What's best is the versatility that allows Stevens to put out combinations of players that play to each other's strengths, minimize each other's weaknesses, and take advantage of what the other team can or can't do.  He experiments with a ton of lineups throughout the year, just to see how they work.  I'm sure he'll go with a Hayward-Brown-Tatum-Crowder-Morris lineup occasionally just to see what it can do.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2017, 08:53:19 AM by saltlover »

Re: Ball Handlers, Wings, Big (and swings?)
« Reply #2 on: July 21, 2017, 08:53:54 AM »

Offline A Future of Stevens

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2524
  • Tommy Points: 486
I look at a Swing as a pf/sf. I think you may have mistyped that up there in your post, or we disagree haha.

I think an ideal lineup has 1 ball handler, 2 wings, a swing and a big.

I feel that lineup best gives you the versatility to penetrate the opposing defense, providing a strong switching defense, give you skill on the perimeter, and bang inside.

Depending on the players you have occupying each position, this could technically change. One lineup with 2 ball handlers, 2 wings and a swing would be incredibly versatile on offense. Or say you had a dominant rebounding swing player, he could be a pseudo big in a unit where you ran say 1 ball handler, 3 wings, and a swing.
#JKJB

Re: Ball Handlers, Wings, Big (and swings?)
« Reply #3 on: July 21, 2017, 09:25:21 AM »

Offline greece66

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7395
  • Tommy Points: 1342
  • Head Paperboy at Greenville
Regarding Stevens thinking on positions there have been several threads in the Forums.

I made a search, hope it helps

"Stevens doesn't think we need a big" by Saltlover (June 2015)

"Forget the rim protector; we are going for a swing" by yours truly (June 2015)

A more recent post by Phosita (June 2017) "Here's the thing about wing depth"

A post on Gallo by arctic 3.0 that also discusses this issue in the OP (Jan 2016)


"Celtics add multiple "Swings" this year." by KG Living Legend (September 2016)

Finally, for those interested in the Forums history, below is the earliest mention of the term "swing" I could find. guava_wrench (January 2009)

This team needs a backup center, they need a big man that can spread the floor with a jumpshot, they need more offense on the second unit.  Brad Miller does all these things.  He is under contract this year and next.

The assumption in this trade is that Sac-Town is looking mostly for salary relief. A buyout with House returning (ala Brent Barry and McDyess) is agreeable to all. It also assume that a wing player will become available before playoffs to come of the bench.

TA, House, Scal w/ one of Powe and BBD and one of Giddens, POB, Pruitt. (+ cash for House's contract if necessary)
for
Brad Miller (and Bobby Brown if Pruitt goes).

Sac-Town cuts Quincy Douby and Eddie House.

After House is bought out, he waits his 30 days and returns to the C's.


Rondo  Pruitt/House  Cassell  Brown
Allen  House   Pruitt  Giddens
Pierce  FA Wing Giddens Walker 
Garnett  Powe/BBD  BBD/POB
Perkins  Miller  BBD/POB

Don't they have to pay House's player option for next year if they cut him? I would keep Miller and his contract over paying 2 years of TA, House, and Scal, and 1 year of Powe/BBD and being forced to flat out cut a guy or two. There must be a better deal out there for Miller.

I also don't see how we can trade TA without first picking up another swing man.

I would gladly take Miller. I just don't see us getting him by trading guys who also have 2-year deals.

Re: Ball Handlers, Wings, Big (and swings?)
« Reply #4 on: July 21, 2017, 10:02:43 AM »

Offline Vermont Green

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11223
  • Tommy Points: 860
Regarding Stevens thinking on positions there have been several threads in the Forums.

I made a search, hope it helps

"Stevens doesn't think we need a big" by Saltlover (June 2015)

"Forget the rim protector; we are going for a swing" by yours truly (June 2015)

A more recent post by Phosita (June 2017) "Here's the thing about wing depth"

A post on Gallo by arctic 3.0 that also discusses this issue in the OP (Jan 2016)


"Celtics add multiple "Swings" this year." by KG Living Legend (September 2016)

Finally, for those interested in the Forums history, below is the earliest mention of the term "swing" I could find. guava_wrench (January 2009)

This team needs a backup center, they need a big man that can spread the floor with a jumpshot, they need more offense on the second unit.  Brad Miller does all these things.  He is under contract this year and next.

The assumption in this trade is that Sac-Town is looking mostly for salary relief. A buyout with House returning (ala Brent Barry and McDyess) is agreeable to all. It also assume that a wing player will become available before playoffs to come of the bench.

TA, House, Scal w/ one of Powe and BBD and one of Giddens, POB, Pruitt. (+ cash for House's contract if necessary)
for
Brad Miller (and Bobby Brown if Pruitt goes).

Sac-Town cuts Quincy Douby and Eddie House.

After House is bought out, he waits his 30 days and returns to the C's.


Rondo  Pruitt/House  Cassell  Brown
Allen  House   Pruitt  Giddens
Pierce  FA Wing Giddens Walker 
Garnett  Powe/BBD  BBD/POB
Perkins  Miller  BBD/POB

Don't they have to pay House's player option for next year if they cut him? I would keep Miller and his contract over paying 2 years of TA, House, and Scal, and 1 year of Powe/BBD and being forced to flat out cut a guy or two. There must be a better deal out there for Miller.

I also don't see how we can trade TA without first picking up another swing man.

I would gladly take Miller. I just don't see us getting him by trading guys who also have 2-year deals.

I think the terms "swing man" is a little different than a "swing" as used by Stevens.  Historically in basketball, a swingman is someone like John Havlicek who could play two wing positions (SG/SF).  Steven's swings are players that can swing between a wing and a big I believe.

Maybe this is much ado about nothing.  Perhaps the greatest Celtics team ever, Ainge-Johnson-Bird-McHale-Parrish, was what, 2 wings, a swing (Bird) and two Bigs.  Nothing conventional about that.

Re: Ball Handlers, Wings, Big (and swings?)
« Reply #5 on: July 21, 2017, 10:09:58 AM »

Offline footey

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15965
  • Tommy Points: 1833
Jeff Clark's Venn Diagram succinctly sets forth our roster in terms of positioning.  Encourage all to give it a gander.

Re: Ball Handlers, Wings, Big (and swings?)
« Reply #6 on: July 21, 2017, 10:12:13 AM »

Offline Androslav

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2983
  • Tommy Points: 528
Heluva, greasy find @greece666, in your post.
Guys like you and Saltlover, and some others really raise this CB forum quality.

As far as my thinking goes about the positions in general, it is that there are some guys that are omni-positional. Some are that good.

Giannis (plays the point, switches like crazy, protects the rim and gives vertical spacing...)
LBJ (plays the point, shoots the ball, protects the rim, switches in streches...)
Kawhi (handles, creates, shoots, can switch all, post up, catches lobs...)
Durant (dribbles, shoots from far out and in volume, protects the rim, rebounds, makes the right passes...)

There are a couple of more guys that are close. More will come in the near future. This goden age of basketball will reap benefits long term, I am conviencing myself.

In theory, I want 5 omni-positioned guys. Then I have no weakness and the most versatility. Offcourse I can't have them all, so I have to safisfy myself with less. 4, 3, 2, the most I can get.
This 1/3/1 formula is the easiest to implement in regard to our current roster. This year, we will run like hell with our wing fleet and destroy opositions (especially bench) excusses for wings.
4/1 is the formula I would like to see on the floor, from us, in the near future.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2017, 10:32:54 AM by Androslav »
"The joy of the balling under the rims."

Re: Ball Handlers, Wings, Big (and swings?)
« Reply #7 on: July 21, 2017, 10:14:53 AM »

Offline ThePaintedArea

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 763
  • Tommy Points: 111
So I get that there is new jargon coming from Brad Stevens on how he thinks about players rather than the traditional 5 positions.  What I am not clear about is how many of each are on the floor for an ideal line up?  Is it:

1 Handler
3 Wings
1 Big

or

1 Handler
2 Wings
2 Bigs

There's no ideal lineup. Size still matters in today's game, but speed (or rather quickness, as my coach used to say) has gotten more and more important in the last generation - thanks to the forward-thinking rules changes promoted by Don Nelson and others. Gradually, the whole basketball world has adapted to the wide-open game; it's long past due for the NCAA to get into the 21st century.

You didn't offer a lineup with two ballhandlers, but that is also possible.

I believe that the ball handler is pretty much the same as a traditional PG, wing = SG or SF, and a big = PF or C.  A swing is a SG/PF combo and there are still traditional combo guards that can play the traditional PG and SG (not sure what they are called in the new jargon).

I'm not sure that I'd call Smart a "traditional PG", but he is definitely a ballhandler.

I think you need two bigs on the court or at minimum a big and a swing.  I don't think you need two handlers, I would prefer more wings, but not the end of the world to have two ball handlers. 

If you look at Brad's practice last year, two bigs is the norm, with by far fewer minutes for a big and a swing.  Two swings (or for that matter, truly positionless lineups) is an arrangement that he simply did not use.

As for two ballhandlers - Brad used that a lot. Smart as a ballhandler allowed IT to play off the ball, a role in which he excels, and which gives him a break.

I consider Morris big enough to be the second big.

I do not. But he's versatile, strong, and long enough to be a swing.

I am curious what people think regarding line ups, not necessarily specific players but what combination of these new jargon roles is the best.

I think that, just as you need versatile players in today's game, you also need versatile lineups.

We're going to see a lot more big/swing lineups than last year, that at least seems clear. The door for Jayson Tatum is wide open.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2017, 11:10:49 AM by ThePaintedArea »

Re: Ball Handlers, Wings, Big (and swings?)
« Reply #8 on: July 21, 2017, 10:47:58 AM »

Offline greece66

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7395
  • Tommy Points: 1342
  • Head Paperboy at Greenville
@Vermont Green

You are absolutely right. I looked for the first mention of the word, but its meaning has since then changed.

@Androslav hvala ti, that's very kind of you.

Since you mentioned Giannis, my worry is that they will use him as a regular SF  in this Eurobasket.

I really hope I am wrong, but  IMO our roster and coaching staff are not the right ones to put around Giannis, neither offensively or offensively.

Re: Ball Handlers, Wings, Big (and swings?)
« Reply #9 on: July 21, 2017, 11:44:58 AM »

Offline Ed Hollison

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 619
  • Tommy Points: 195
I fully believe the Celtics signed Baynes to start alongside Horford, sort of duplicating the dynamic they had last year with Amir and Horford together. It gives the team some defense and rebounding early on, then you can go small later in the game, essentially replacing one of those bigs with a bigger wing (swing) like Crowder or Morris.

I'm very confident they'll start with IT, Brown, Hayward, Baynes, and Horford. That is: a ball-handler, two wings, and two bigs. Pretty traditional.

The first substitution would be Smart for Brown, allowing (as a previous poster mentioned) Smart to be the primary ball handler with IT playing off the ball.

Then you can take out one of the bigs (Baynes) for a bigger wing (Crowder, Morris) and go smaller, with just one big on the floor. The Celtics finished a lot of their games like this.

I also believe at certain stretches this year they'll put out a no big lineup with Morris as the "biggest" player on the floor, but size at other positions. Imagine, for instance: Smart/Brown/Hayward/Crowder/Morris or something. That's the "switch everything" lineup.

So much flexibility and given the C's personnel I'm thankful that they've got Stevens as the one responsible for figuring it all out.
"A thought of hatred must be destroyed by a more powerful thought of love."

http://fruittreeblog.com

Re: Ball Handlers, Wings, Big (and swings?)
« Reply #10 on: July 21, 2017, 12:10:38 PM »

Offline ThePaintedArea

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 763
  • Tommy Points: 111
The number of players on the court can change.

Not literally, though Vivek Ranadive might have something to say about that.  :police:

That's sort of the point with having more categories.  Sometimes there will be two ball handlers, occasionally 3, other times one.

Three?! But you touch on the question of whether or not a changing role on the court also changes a player's designation (for example Horford is obviously a big - but is he not also a wing, and even a ballhandler?).


...and between 1-4 wings (maybe even 5 if a couple of them are capable ballhandlers.)

Truly positionless ball is a wonderful ideal for the true fan, but I'll believe it when I see it.  I'm confident that there will be NO lineups with five wings in 2017-18.

Stevens has vacillated between breaking what we call wings into two subcategories -- wings and swings.  In this definition, guys like Marcus Morris, Jae Crowder, and last year Jonas Jerebko would be swings -- perimeter players on offense who can guard wings and bigs on defense.  Last year's prime example of a wing was Bradley -- this year, Hayward is one also.

I think that the experiment with Jonas as a wing was a failure; in any case we didn't see the experiment repeated last season.

Stevens now has a lot of bigger wings, even in his wing/swing subcategory, so even tho Hayward and Brown won't match up on bigs on defense, they're capable of switching onto them for short stretches.

Yes, pretty clear.

Accordingly, this year the wing/swing definition will be much more muddled, because they're all the same size.

I wouldn't say so, though if the point is that there is more versatility in the roster, I'd agree. In fact, I'd say that if there's one category that there's more of this upcoming year, it's swings. Tatum, for instance, at a long 6'8", and Morris, at 6'9", are swings (at least potentially, in the case of Tatum), while Brown cannot. On the other hand, Brad made a point of putting Brown on all sorts of players throughout the season - except bigs.

Hayward - at a long 6'8", with 7' wingspan, has got the size to be a swing. But will you see many lineups with him guarding pf's/swings? I doubt it. You yourself have him pegged as a non-swing.

Is Jerebko a swing? I suppose so - but guarding wings was a big problem for him. Like Bradley, who had trouble guarding bigger wings, he was less versatile. I think that he falls into an older slightly pejorative category: a Tweener.

I don't think there's any "best" combo.  What's best is the versatility that allows Stevens to put out combinations of players that play to each other's strengths, minimize each other's weaknesses, and take advantage of what the other team can or can't do.  He experiments with a ton of lineups throughout the year, just to see how they work.

I agree. In fact, you'd expect that getting more versatile players would translate into more versatile lineups.

There could be 0-2 bigs

I'm sure he'll go with a Hayward-Brown-Tatum-Crowder-Morris lineup occasionally just to see what it can do.

Here I'm doubtful, though pre-season 2016 featured some lineups with Jerebko as the biggest player.

By far the most common lineups last season had two bigs. There were no meaningful minutes given to lineups with two swings.

Re: Ball Handlers, Wings, Big (and swings?)
« Reply #11 on: July 29, 2017, 01:55:25 PM »

Offline jacigar

  • The Green Kornet
  • Posts: 94
  • Tommy Points: 9
I think positions should be classified as : 1-ball handler(pg) 2- guard (combo pg/sg) 3-s/wing,4-s/swing, 5-med wing, 6-m/swing, 7-lg wing, 8-lg/swing, 9- big These will allow, great versatility and provide, continual pressure on both offense and defense I think the Celtics see this as a method to beat better individual talented teams.etc GS and Cleveland. Training camp will be a chance to grade all of our players and classify where they fall in this scheme

Re: Ball Handlers, Wings, Big (and swings?)
« Reply #12 on: July 29, 2017, 03:27:21 PM »

Offline bdm860

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5952
  • Tommy Points: 4586
For a lineup with no "bigs" I was curious, and according to bball-ref, this is how it went during the regular season and playoffs:

Regular Season (Top 500 lineups by minutes played), a lineup with no bigs (Horford, Johnson, Zeller, Olynyk, Mickey, or Jerebko) happened for a total of 3.4 minutes and -9 points.

Most popular lineup was Bradley, Brown, Crowder, Smart, Thomas, happened in 2 different games for a total of 1.8 minutes, and was -8 points.

In the playoffs, Bradley, Brown, Crowder, Green, and Thomas played 3.4 minutes in 1 game, and was -3 points (beginning of 4th quarter in Game 1 vs Cleveland).  No other "bigless" lineup played more than 1 minute together.

After 18 months with their Bigs, the Littles were: 46% less likely to use illegal drugs, 27% less likely to use alcohol, 52% less likely to skip school, 37% less likely to skip a class

Re: Ball Handlers, Wings, Big (and swings?)
« Reply #13 on: July 29, 2017, 07:31:07 PM »

Offline ThePaintedArea

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 763
  • Tommy Points: 111
There are a couple of more guys that are close. More will come in the near future. This goden age of basketball will reap benefits long term, I am conviencing myself.

In theory, I want 5 omni-positioned guys. Then I have no weakness and the most versatility. Offcourse I can't have them all, so I have to safisfy myself with less. 4, 3, 2, the most I can get.
This 1/3/1 formula is the easiest to implement in regard to our current roster. This year, we will run like hell with our wing fleet and destroy opositions (especially bench) excusses for wings.
4/1 is the formula I would like to see on the floor, from us, in the near future.

Love your vision of today's game.

Milwaukee is the most radical experiment - with the change in management, will they lose their radical approach?

Re: Ball Handlers, Wings, Big (and swings?)
« Reply #14 on: July 29, 2017, 08:24:17 PM »

Offline Surferdad

  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14456
  • Tommy Points: 972
  • "He fiddles...and diddles..."
I fully believe the Celtics signed Baynes to start alongside Horford, sort of duplicating the dynamic they had last year with Amir and Horford together. It gives the team some defense and rebounding early on, then you can go small later in the game, essentially replacing one of those bigs with a bigger wing (swing) like Crowder or Morris.

I'm very confident they'll start with IT, Brown, Hayward, Baynes, and Horford. That is: a ball-handler, two wings, and two bigs. Pretty traditional.

The first substitution would be Smart for Brown, allowing (as a previous poster mentioned) Smart to be the primary ball handler with IT playing off the ball.

Then you can take out one of the bigs (Baynes) for a bigger wing (Crowder, Morris) and go smaller, with just one big on the floor. The Celtics finished a lot of their games like this.

I also believe at certain stretches this year they'll put out a no big lineup with Morris as the "biggest" player on the floor, but size at other positions. Imagine, for instance: Smart/Brown/Hayward/Crowder/Morris or something. That's the "switch everything" lineup.

So much flexibility and given the C's personnel I'm thankful that they've got Stevens as the one responsible for figuring it all out.
Interesting ideas, agree with some, but hard to imagine Crowder dropping to 7th or 8th on the depth chart. I think he starts instead of Baynes who comes off the bench if the small lineup isn't working.