Small Ball

[Hambombs]

Gonna be fun to watch the lineup of Steph,Klay,Igoudala,Barnes at the same time at one point, especially against a team like the Nets. They will run them out of the gym.

 

[_so_money_]

If you have Bogut/O'Neal in there, I don't really consider it that small. That lineup is really only small at 1 position, and Barnes isn't really that much smaller than David Lee...and is much more athletic. Now I guess if you slide Lee up to C you could say it's a small frontline, at least.

 

[EKmane]

There will also probably times that we go real small with Douglas, Curry, Thompson, Barnes and Iggy. That team might be considered "small", but with Iggy at 6'6, Barnes at 6'8 and Thompson at 6'7 we can still rebound and defend. The skill on the floor will make the other team take their center off the floor

 

[NBKLee]

There will also probably times that we go real small with Douglas, Curry, Thompson, Barnes and Iggy. That team might be considered "small", but with Iggy at 6'6, Barnes at 6'8 and Thompson at 6'7 we can still rebound and defend. The skill on the floor will make the other team take their center off the floor

Umm, yeah, lets hope it doesn't come to that. Don't get me wrong, I love "small ball" like most fans, its exciting, and we score lots of points. Its not always the most effective thing, especially against larger teams.


But the main reason we ran D. Green out there at the 4 and 5 at times last year was due to injuries. When Coach looks down to the end of the bench and sees J. Tyler, La tax, and RJ, , you are going to want to throw Green in there.


We have legit size, Bogut (healthy), JO (healthy?), Speights, D.Lee (healthy?), and FE after the new year. We should embrace that more than run from it (pun intended).



OT: Speaking of small ball, Nate signed with the Nuggets, I say when we play them this year, we post Steph against him every possession. Watching Steph back him down or drive past him is going to be nice.

 

[EKmane]

Umm, yeah, lets hope it doesn't come to that. Don't get me wrong, I love "small ball" like most fans, its exciting, and we score lots of points. Its not always the most effective thing, especially against larger teams.


But the main reason we ran D. Green out there at the 4 and 5 at times last year was due to injuries. When Coach looks down to the end of the bench and sees J. Tyler, La tax, and RJ, , you are going to want to throw Green in there.


We have legit size, Bogut (healthy), JO (healthy?), Speights, D.Lee (healthy?), and FE after the new year. We should embrace that more than run from it (pun intended).



OT: Speaking of small ball, Nate signed with the Nuggets, I say when we play them this year, we post Steph against him every possession. Watching Steph back him down or drive past him is going to be nice.

That team would change the tempo of the game for a quick spurt.

We don't always need to have size (less skill) in the game. Basketball is about matchups, this will create matchup problems for spurts. You'll see

 

[shaffdogg76]

I agree with EK. It's really about skill more than size.

Small ball is the result of playing skilled ball (actually putting 5 guys on the floor who can shoot, pass, and dribble). Nellie would play his 5 best basketball players and the lineups were small because the Warriors never had bigs with basketball skills.

If Nellie had coached a roster that had Dirk, Duncan, Garnett, Webber, and Lebron he would probably play them together and there would be nothing "small" about that lineup.

 

[CitySushi]

I agree with EK. It's really about skill more than size.

Small ball is the result of playing skilled ball (actually putting 5 guys on the floor who can shoot, pass, and dribble). Nellie would play his 5 best basketball players and the lineups were small because the Warriors never had bigs with basketball skills.

If Nellie had coached a roster that had Dirk, Duncan, Garnett, Webber, and Lebron he would probably play them together and there would be nothing "small" about that lineup.

I slightly disagree. Small ball was essentially Nelly's way of creating advantages while masking the flaws of his team. His teams were generally already poor on defense and poor rebounding, so it didn't hurt them additionally to put out a smaller lineup that wouldn't defend or rebound either. He was seeking to create an advantage on the offensive end by mismatching players based on their position opponents. It wasn't necessarily about putting the best 5 guys on the floor. It was about creating mis-matches.

If Nelly had a skilled big man, he'd essentially do what he did when he had Patrick Ewing on the Knicks...run it into the ground. Nelly was a fantastic basketball mind, but he was original Mike D'Antoni. Nelly wouldn't know what to do with a big man.

Arguably a "small" lineup of Curry, AI, Klay, HB and Bogut would be more than adequate defensively. With any mismatches on offense, HB could hopefully offset any production by the opposing player. Bogut, AI and to a slightly lesser degree Klay are all good defensive players. Curry is what he is on defense. With this "small" lineup, we wouldn't be at much of a disadvantage on the defense/rebounding end.

 

[EKmane]

I slightly disagree. Small ball was essentially Nelly's way of creating advantages while masking the flaws of his team. His teams were generally already poor on defense and poor rebounding, so it didn't hurt them additionally to put out a smaller lineup that wouldn't defend or rebound either. He was seeking to create an advantage on the offensive end by mismatching players based on their position opponents. It wasn't necessarily about putting the best 5 guys on the floor. It was about creating mis-matches.

If Nelly had a skilled big man, he'd essentially do what he did when he had Patrick Ewing on the Knicks...run it into the ground. Nelly was a fantastic basketball mind, but he was original Mike D'Antoni. Nelly wouldn't know what to do with a big man.

Arguably a "small" lineup of Curry, AI, Klay, HB and Bogut would be more than adequate defensively. With any mismatches on offense, HB could hopefully offset any production by the opposing player. Bogut, AI and to a slightly lesser degree Klay are all good defensive players. Curry is what he is on defense. With this "small" lineup, we wouldn't be at much of a disadvantage on the defense/rebounding end.

Remember when Nelly had this rookie named Chris Webber? Thats what Nelly would do with a skilled big. Ewing had skills, noy the Don Nelson style type of skill.

 

[CitySushi]

Remember when Nelly had this rookie named Chris Webber? Thats what Nelly would do with a skilled big. Ewing had skills, noy the Don Nelson style type of skill.

Chris Webber had a fantastic year as a rookie, yet, he hated the way Nelly utilized him. Isn't that something to consider as well? He also ran Webber out of town.

Also Nelly should have figured a way to incorporate Ewing rather than just label him as "not his type" of big man. Great coaches should figure a way to bring the best out of players, particularly a Hall of Fame big man.

Sorry not trying to derail this thread on small ball with another Nelly thread.

 

[EKmane]

I slightly disagree. Small ball was essentially Nelly's way of creating advantages while masking the flaws of his team. His teams were generally already poor on defense and poor rebounding, so it didn't hurt them additionally to put out a smaller lineup that wouldn't defend or rebound either. He was seeking to create an advantage on the offensive end by mismatching players based on their position opponents. It wasn't necessarily about putting the best 5 guys on the floor. It was about creating mis-matches.

If Nelly had a skilled big man, he'd essentially do what he did when he had Patrick Ewing on the Knicks...run it into the ground. Nelly was a fantastic basketball mind, but he was original Mike D'Antoni. Nelly wouldn't know what to do with a big man.

Arguably a "small" lineup of Curry, AI, Klay, HB and Bogut would be more than adequate defensively. With any mismatches on offense, HB could hopefully offset any production by the opposing player. Bogut, AI and to a slightly lesser degree Klay are all good defensive players. Curry is what he is on defense. With this "small" lineup, we wouldn't be at much of a disadvantage on the defense/rebounding end.

Boguts offense is why you have to run without him (while going small). Klay, AI and Barnes are big enough to defend bigs as a team (for spurts). Not starting, just when they start mismatching.

 

[EKmane]

Chris Webber had a fantastic year as a rookie, yet, he hated the way Nelly utilized him. Isn't that something to consider as well? He also ran Webber out of town.

Also Nelly should have figured a way to incorporate Ewing rather than just label him as "not his type" of big man. Great coaches should figure a way to bring the best out of players, particularly a Hall of Fame big man.

Sorry not trying to derail this thread on small ball with another Nelly thread.

20 year olds dont always know what best for them. That was his best season.

 

[CitySushi]

Boguts offense is why you have to run without him (while going small). Klay, AI and Barnes are big enough to defend bigs as a team (for spurts). Not starting, just when they start mismatching.

I agree that Bogut's offense leaves something to be desired at this point, but when you have 4 weapons out there at a time, 5 seems like a bit over kill? I'd much rather see Bogut out there at the 5 with the other 4 than see Lee there.

 

[EKmane]

I agree that Bogut's offense leaves something to be desired at this point, but when you have 4 weapons out there at a time, 5 seems like a bit over kill? I'd much rather see Bogut out there at the 5 with the other 4 than see Lee there.

Nah, not Lee. I'm going EXTREME with this one, my friend. I'm saying (for quick spurts of increasing leads) running with Douglas, Curry, Klay, AI and Barnes. True, another team MIGHT be able to post up Barnes in the paint (which isn't so easy with excellent help defenders), but no "traditional" team would be athletic enough to keep up with this squad (remember I'm only talking mismatched spurts).

We don't lose much defense with this squad either, Douglas locking up the pg, AI on the best player and Curry on the weakest. With the 15 lbs of added muscle and with his quickness Barnes would give a center (in the right matchup) fits.

 

[NBKLee]

Boguts offense is why you have to run without him (while going small). Klay, AI and Barnes are big enough to defend bigs as a team (for spurts). Not starting, just when they start mismatching.

We talking about the Bogut that played at 50-60% during most of the regular season?





I'll take Bogut at 80-90% for 22-26 minutes every night vs "small ball" for 22-26 minutes.

 

[EKmane]

We talking about the Bogut that played at 50-60% during most of the regular season?


Or this Beast



I'll take Bogut at 80-90% for 22-26 minutes every night vs "small ball" for 22-26 minutes.

Thats silly! Why would you take Bogut at 80% for only 22-26 mins? I'm talking about small ball for even shorter spurts than what you posted (all depending on matchups)

*p.s. I love those freaking highlights. I'm so pumped to have Bogut close to 100%, to go along with the rest of the roster.

LETS GO!

 

[EKmane]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAN-SISCHeY

Bogut in real beast mode.

LETS FUCKING GO!!!!

 

[Hambombs]

I slightly disagree. Small ball was essentially Nelly's way of creating advantages while masking the flaws of his team. His teams were generally already poor on defense and poor rebounding, so it didn't hurt them additionally to put out a smaller lineup that wouldn't defend or rebound either. He was seeking to create an advantage on the offensive end by mismatching players based on their position opponents. It wasn't necessarily about putting the best 5 guys on the floor. It was about creating mis-matches.

If Nelly had a skilled big man, he'd essentially do what he did when he had Patrick Ewing on the Knicks...run it into the ground. Nelly was a fantastic basketball mind, but he was original Mike D'Antoni. Nelly wouldn't know what to do with a big man.

Arguably a "small" lineup of Curry, AI, Klay, HB and Bogut would be more than adequate defensively. With any mismatches on offense, HB could hopefully offset any production by the opposing player. Bogut, AI and to a slightly lesser degree Klay are all good defensive players. Curry is what he is on defense. With this "small" lineup, we wouldn't be at much of a disadvantage on the defense/rebounding end.

Klay is actually a good defender

 

[Heathbar012]

Klay is actually a good defender

Really? He may be better than Steph and still improving, but good is a stretch. I would say almost average because of his wingspan. I think you got too used to watching the atrocities of the Curry-Ellis defensive back court. Klay's footwork is bad. Again, he is getting better, and he will get the benefit of the doubt from refs as his career goes on, so he can be more physical, which will help. Iguodala and Barnes covering the best perimeter player on the floor will definitely help him out this season as well, but if this team didn't have Curry, Klay would be relegated to the most stationary guard on the opposing team every game.

 

[CitySushi]

Really? He may be better than Steph and still improving, but good is a stretch. I would say almost average because of his wingspan. I think you got too used to watching the atrocities of the Curry-Ellis defensive back court. Klay's footwork is bad. Again, he is getting better, and he will get the benefit of the doubt from refs as his career goes on, so he can be more physical, which will help. Iguodala and Barnes covering the best perimeter player on the floor will definitely help him out this season as well, but if this team didn't have Curry, Klay would be relegated to the most stationary guard on the opposing team every game.

Klay doesn't have the athleticism to be a great defender, but what I love about him is his effort. He's about an average defender, if not slightly above. That's not a knock on him, because I believe he's playing at or above his capabilities on the defensive end. He doesn't have exceptional lateral quickness, which most great defenders have. Klay also has a bit of a tough time chasing defenders around and through screens. He does have size though, which allows him more recovery room.

 

[rayhl111]

Sushi: Agree w/you re Klay's lateral movements. But, neither did Rick Fox have much in the way of movement, lateral or anything. Fox was slow as in slow as molasses but he knew how to play angles and got up in someone's grill. Same to w/Bruce Bowen though BB was one of the best of all time. Nice to be physically gifted but you can play D w/out it.