Avery Bradley: New NBA paradigm?
by JR99 on Jan 24, 2012 1:29 AM EST
Email
PrintThe NBA is a copycat's heaven; teams are constantly learning from and copying other teams. After the Celtics won the title in '08, for example, suddenly tough defense became de rigueur around the league and amongst announcers and commentators. That's the way it is, and probably the way it should be.
On January 23, the Celtics played the Orlando Magic and, due to team injuries, Avery Bradley started. Though his stat line was mostly unremarkable, by all accounts Bradley was the star of the game, and the single most significant reason the Celtics blew out Orlando to an extent not seen by either team in their entire histories. He did it with his infectious energy, and tenacious, amazing defensive effort. (Neither team did well offensively: Cs scored below their season norm, and shot an anemic 42% FG%. But Orlando's FG% was 24.6%(!), and they scored the fewest total points of their entire history.)
It all started with Bradley's decision before the game – which he conveyed to his coach and other team members – to pick up and guard his opposing point guard at full court through the entire game. That is exactly what he did, and it worked beyond all expectations.
So here's my question: Why is it so unheard-of in the NBA to start the defense at full court? I don't get it. Doesn't the offense start at full court? Why then is it "normal" for NBA defenders to start their defense somewhere between half-court and quarter-court? Why are PGs given a pass when they bring the ball up? Those seconds matter. Why doesn't every quick-and-agile defender play full-court defense? All (or most of) the time!?
Ok, there are some caveats. The defender MUST be quick and agile, so that the opposing PG can't leave him behind and thus get a 5-on-4 advantage in the half-court. And the entire team must be careful to provide good backup, and to not let opponents pick off the full-court defender without warning. But these caveats are obvious, and apply in all situations. They alone do not explain or excuse the lack of complete defense around the league.
I mean.... Avery Bradley is very quick and athletic, to be sure, but he's certainly not the only one in the NBA with those attributes.
The only reason I can think of to explain the absence of the Bradley Defense around the NBA is, in a word, laziness. It's hard. It takes a lot of energy. But.... so what? The WHOLE GAME takes enormous energy, especially if you want to win. Why does all this energy expenditure stop when it comes to playing complete defense? (But ok, if it's too hard to do in every game, one would think they'd at least turn it on for the important/tough ones.)
So here's a prediction. Teams are paying attention. As this season progresses, we will see, from time to time, more of the Bradley Defense played in key games, around the league. And maybe, just maybe, this kind of D will become the new paradigm.
Imo, the Celtics should play this way in EVERY PLAYOFF GAME this season. Every single one. I can't think of a reason not to.
If anyone disagrees, please enlighten.
Be respectful and keep it clean. Thanks.
30 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
"the celtics should play this way in EVERY PLAYOFF GAME"
Heck yeah. The way that full court defense on the opposing pg affects the opposing team’s overall offense is groundshakingly disruptive.
A lot of it is because of the schedule
That kind of energy can’t be sustained for 82 games straight. The players will get too tired. If games were played once a week, then the full court press is very effective. We see that in the college game. However, when a team has 3-4 games in a week (this season maybe 5), it’s not sustainable to let a player pressure the ball handler full court every single game.
It's risky
Especially if the opposing PG is taller, he can just pass the ball to the other half with a cross court pass, and then we would be 4 against 5.
I don't follow rules, I let the rules follow me.
how does that happen?
why should they suddenly be one more player?
by European NBA fan on Jan 24, 2012 8:14 AM EST up reply actions
By definition, the passer in your case is in the backcourt
… with the defender, so it would not be 5-on-4. That would happen only if the defender is either beat (badly) or picked off.
It might be a little much for someone playing 50 minutes every night but...
Avery Bradley with limited minutes can play this way every minute he is in.
I really hope he does.
only problem with this is...
a game is only 48 minutes.. not 50.. maybe you rounded up? which means the player plays every single minute of every game all year? highly unlikely.
He just needs to improve his offence
And he will be Iverson 2.0
I don't follow rules, I let the rules follow me.
3 reasons
1) Wears you down over a long season.
2) Better PGs will clown you (see John Wall’s performance against Bradley on Sunday — 27/10/7).
3) Fouls. Some refs won’t tolerate it, and if they beat the press, they get easy buckets and/or your big guys get in foul trouble.
Bonus) Getting leveled once a game by big men setting picks that you don’t see.
Let’s not overreact to success from 1 game.
Well, let's see....
1) Playing the game of basketball in the NBA wears you down. It’s an extremely high energy game. Why stop at full court D on the guy bringing the ball up? But I would agree that there’s less to be gained from doing it in easy games and games that don’t matter much — which could reasonably be construed as the entire regular season, assuming there’s no doubt about making the playoffs. But the team should be AWARE when it’s not putting out a maximum effort, in light of the possible-but-unutilized Bradley D.
2) Bradley didn’t apply his full court press throughout the game vs. Wall. And I don’t remember any ‘clowning’ by Wall as a result of the pressure D. Perhaps if we HAD applied the full Bradley Defense then, the game would have turned out better.
3) Yes, there are refs would will shut it down. Just as there are refs would will shut down your entire game, sometimes. (See Finals game 3, 2010.) These things are not controllable… they depend on factors like: the betting line, ego, history, which side of the bed the refs woke up on, etc….. few of which relate to the game of basketball. It’s a rotten sport in that regard. Too bad… but this doesn’t change the logic.
4) Yes, the team as a whole must participate by warning the defender when the pick is coming, and backing him up when it does (and at all times).
Bottom line: this is a higher level of basketball defense that for whatever reason is usually avoided. The fact that it’s hard is probably reason #1. I just think that’s not a good reason, not in games that you MUST WIN. Therefore, I would like to see it done in every playoff game, as possible.
Just wanna point out
…that the relatively recent (1994) rule against hand-checking in the backcourt does make the Bradley D harder to implement without getting too many foul calls. I don’t particularly like that rule, but it is what it is… they wanted a more “offensive” game, and they got it.
+1 on all 4 responses
NBA Officiating - Corrupt? Incompetent? Which is worse? Does it matter? It sucks.
Can anyone else see a Rondo/Bradley backcourt being absolutely brutal doing this? Teams would be lucky to start their offense with 15 on the clock
Mr. Bryant, let me introduce you to Mr. Bradley, he’s going to be sharing your jersey with you tonight . . .
Sometimes glass glitters more than diamonds because it has more to prove.
Sadly, just the idea that Bradley might play within 10 feet of Kobe would probably result in a foul being called ....
NBA Officiating - Corrupt? Incompetent? Which is worse? Does it matter? It sucks.
not this year
If Boston plays against LA in the finals this year it means something really really strange happened in both conferences.
Sometimes glass glitters more than diamonds because it has more to prove.
Great post.
I agree with you. I think we should do more of this. Another benefit is that it can keep our older guys more fresh due to the way it halts the opposing team’s offense and tempo.
plan
I wonder if this is what Doc and Danny envisioned with Rondo/Bradley. They can make it very difficult for any guards having to deal with them. I just hope everyone heals up, but Doc keeps getting everyone minutes.
danger
I fear that a Bradley / Rondo backcourt could be very challenged in a half court set (right now). Teams already sag off Rondo- now you would have no driving room for Pierce or anyone because the guards can sag off- and all defenders could go under the pick and roll because they don’t respect their shooting. Right now, Bradley should get time in the second group-with Ray at SG. Move Pietrus to starter.
Good point on the offense part of the equation
This is the balance that Doc must try to achieve. Now if only RR and AB would develop killer middle-distance jumpers……………..
Eventually, I still believe that Bradley's jumper is going to get better and better.
He has great catch-and-shoot form and excellent shooting history in high-school, college and the D-League. As he gets more and more confident in the NBA level he should be able to provide a legitimate off-the-ball mover-and-shooter for Rondo to feed.
You are correct that in the short term, he is not going to provide the same sort of ‘spacing’ threat that Ray, Pietrus or Dooling do at the 2. He’s done nothing yet to earn that respect from defenses.
But assuming his NBA shooting numbers eventually climb up to where he was in other levels, he should be able to provide that. Bradley was a very legitimate 3PT shooter at all lower levels.
Rondo already has a legitimate mid-distance jump shot that he’s been pretty consistent with and this year seems determined to use it more. He just doesn’t have a 3PT shot and of course still needs to dramatically improve at the FT line.
NBA Officiating - Corrupt? Incompetent? Which is worse? Does it matter? It sucks.
I didn't know that about Avery's history
Good news. Of course I agree that this means we can expect his shooting to improve, possibly soon. Now, with both these guys shooting well, at least by the time playoffs come…. this team could go far. Am I dreaming? Maybe…. but that’s part of the fun.
Was the top point guard prospect coming out of high school. Played at the 2 guard spot in college because he was taller than the kid that ended up playing the point on that texas team.
Good kid, you can see he’s gaining confidence. He’s played pretty much all his minutes this year like he did this past game. It’s just been generally against more capable ball handlers or faster players. So it didn’t generate the same kind of turn over numbers.
Sometimes glass glitters more than diamonds because it has more to prove.
If Bradley would come off the bench and do that....
I think its possible, he will only be on the court for what 15-10 minutes. With rondo he is not gonna be out the too long.
I used to play a little point in a crappy social league
In Australia and it is exhausting guarding a guy full court because on occasion he beats you only by about a foot and you have to use more energy to get in front of him again. It works brilliantly but saps 3 times the energy so you have to be fit (which I’m not). So for Bradley to do that the whole game is incredible. I think your right you may see coaches go 3 point guards deep in games just so they can apply full court pressure.
i agree... BUT
The bench needs to full court press every possession, put bradley, Moore, pietrus, bass, stiemsma out there for 4 minutes and press them every play, put traps in the D… create easy baskets.
I don’t think the starting 5 has – A. The legs to keep the pace. B. The correct players to execute the D. They are a half court shut them down, switch, talk, help, get into the passing lanes. Than run the lanes.
But the bench with dooling included could create a 5 minutes from hell for other teams. Get the crowd into. Get steals. Get the other team tired. Force them into plays they don’t want.
1.- if your man gets by you in the backcourt on a crossover, then he can drive to the lane, and it IS a 5 on 4 as youre out of position trailing behind him.
2.-If your man beats you on the dribble and you foul him trying to recover, you just contributed to your team going into the bonus quicker (and possibly sent someone to the line to shoot), when the other team wasn’t even legitimately in scoring range yet.
3.-You risk tiring yourself out. Going at 100% while your opponent is threatening to score is fine, but going 100% when theyre 60 feet away from the basket may do more harm than good, if it means that youre only capable of giving 98% once they actually are in scoring range.
Against slower/less than elite dribblers it’s fine, but up against a stronger or faster guard with a better handle. it’s far more likely to result in fouls than turnovers or an advantageous clock
Everything done on the court (and elsewhere, for that matter) has risks
The risks you describe are certainly real. They must be kept in mind, and measures taken to avoid them (especially by making sure everyone is there to help, as needed). But let’s remember that in their last game, the Celtics, with 5 guys out, blew out a pretty good contender to an HISTORIC level, using this tactic. To the extent there is evidence about this, it seems to be saying that it can work, and work spectacularly.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
NBA Playoffs Content Module
Related FanPosts on CelticsBlog
Related FanShots on CelticsBlog
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Kendrick Perkins does not think much of Andrew Bynum’s relative intelligence
- Behind the Box Score, where the Boston Celtics are moving on to the conference finals
- NBA Playoffs Fan Fiction: San Antonio Spurs vs. Oklahoma City Thunder
- The Indiana Pacers? Gone till November
- Shaquille O’Neal is in a Chinese beer commercial, too (VIDEO)
