FanPost

New NBA meta? Why the modern NBA small ball might be going extinct.

Greg M. Cooper-USA TODAY Sports

So in competitive video games, there is this term called the metagame used to describe the strategy (or at least tactics) the top players use to perform the best in competition. This metagame, or "the meta" for short, varies depending on what the best players are doing to gain a competitive edge. However, this metagame can change and evolve based on changes to the game or even just changes to what other players are doing. To better explain this to people who might not already be familiar with the term, I'm going to use some examples. So bear with me a bit for the nerdiness.

  1. In a MOBA game, there are generally a cast of characters players can choose to use with a preset of moves and abilities that varies depending on what the character is and the role they were designed for. Naturally, a variation in skills and abilities means some characters will be higher tier or, generally speaking, do better in the game than characters that are considered worse for whatever reason. But the thing about this is the landscape of where characters ranked in relation to each other is constantly changing. An update to the game or a change in player behavior can make a character that was overpowered obsolete, or vice versa. (Or something in between.) The point is that which characters are considered best and more popular at any given time would be a part of "the meta."
  2. TF2 was a shooter with characters players could choose from where each character filled a role. There is a character called the Engineer who can set up turrets that automatically shoot enemy players (and deal a lot of damage) with a certain range and sightline. In a meta where Engineers were considered strong, a counter character to that might by the Spy, who has the stealth to sneak around the turret and the tools to disable the Engineer's tech. And a counter to the Spy is the Pyro, who has a flamethrower that hits a large attack area and might be more likely to hit a Spy and reveal its location, particularly in tight corridors. The point here is that if one character is considered strong or even just abnormally abundant, there is typically another character that can counter it. This means that there is the ability to go "countermeta" to adjust to what other players are doing.
  3. Fortnight will be my last example (even though I hate it) because a lot of basketball players seem to be playing it. There are a couple of things to bring up for this one. The first is the building system. Because the game allow you to build walls and platforms quickly, it can be used as a tool in combat. So players who mastered the building system get an advantage in combat over those who don't. The second thing I want to bring up is shotguns. I know of some players who switched to the shotgun because it's close range makes aiming less important. This is because of the way aiming for most guns in Fortnight works. In an attempt to overly cater to casuals, Epic Games made aiming based more on random number generation code than actual aim like a bunch of filthy savages. (Sorry Hayward. We still love you.) So a lot of the meta became based on closer ranged weapons like the shotgun because it lowered the importance of random aiming. (I have no idea if it's still the way.) The point is that the building system and aiming system both impacted player behavior and created a "metagame" around building and the shotgun.

So now that we have that out of the way, I can bring this back to actual basketball. Now it should be noted that the entire reason I made that section was as a set up for the conversation I want to have. I want to talk about where the game is now and where it's changing. There is a school of thought today that talks about the "modern NBA" and what works or what doesn't in it. Those of you who know me well enough will probably know that I don't entirely subscribe to this school of thought. But I can get into the reasons for that later. For now, it's more important to lead with what exactly people mean by "modern NBA." This is the part where I tie in my point about the metagame. What do you think would be considered "the meta" in the modern NBA?

Conventional wisdom around the modern NBA says:

  1. Shoot the 3
  2. Versatility and Wings
  3. Small Ball is Best Ball.
  4. Don't shoot inefficient Midrange
  5. Bigs Don't Matter (Even though I contend that they do)
  6. Mindlessly try to copy whatever Golden State does. (I see you Atlanta)

Is that about right?

From where I am, this appears to be more or less what most arguments around what people consider the modern NBA center on. I'll address these points in a bit. But for now, I want to emphasize how we can now know that "modern NBA" is really just code words for today's metagame. So let's look at today's meta and see if we can separate fact from fiction.

1. Shoot the 3:

I'm not going to say this is wrong. I think it's actually mostly correct. It makes sense that shooting should improve as the game evolves and the 3 point shot is important for both spacing and higher point potential. The greater emphasis on the 3 ball is warranted and more players shooting the 3 ball is a good thing. I just don't think it's warranted at quite the level we tend to obsess over it at.

Not every player can be a sharpshooter. Many of them still have value even if they aren't particularly good 3 ball shooters. Some bigs like Gobert fall into this category. He makes Utah a top 5 defense every year. Marcus Smart is another one. He is probably better off not shooting so many 3s. But he still has value even if he doesn't. Spacing is still important. But I think there is more room in the NBA for guys who are impact players even if they don't shoot the 3 ball particularly well.

2. Versatility and Wings:

This is another one I think is partially true. We know how important switching is in the modern NBA. Modern Wings typically have the size and speed combination to matchup with multiple positions. So their increased versatility makes them more important. However, there are limits to the amount of wings you want in a lineup, particularly depending on matchups and skill sets. Trotting out a lineup of five 6'7ish wings wouldn't do you any good if there was no primary ball handler or no one to guard opposing bigs. So obviously, there is a limit to this. Wings are incredibly important. They just aren't the end all be all.

3. Small Ball is Best Ball:

This is one I actually disagree with. I firmly believe that what is appealing about small ball is the greater emphasis placed on speed and mobility in the modern NBA. It's not about going small. It's about going fast. The issue I have with small ball is simply that size is still extremely important in basketball. So sacrificing size to do that can get you in trouble, particularly inside. And if you can get size that is also mobile, well, that's the best of both worlds. Then you don't need small ball anymore and can just wreck.

4. Don't shoot the inefficient Midrange:

This is another one I disagree with because I think it's important to utilize all areas of the court. Yes, technically it's less efficient from a statistical standpoint to shoot a longer 2 point shot. The ideal efficiency areas are from beyond the arc (because of the 3 point shot) or close to the basket for higher percentages. So a midrange shot with some extra range but lower percentages is seen as in efficiency no man's land. Strong proponents of the modern NBA mantra typically seem to believe that this means teams should really cut down on mid range shots.

However, that ignores the opportunity to be found there. Ironically, the problem with ignoring the midrange is spacing. Players are taught to defend the 3 ball and inside more because those are the most efficient forms of offense. But modern NBA teams are so keyed in on defending the inside out game that there are whole areas of midrange that are almost always open every game. Anyone who can consistently hit midrange shots for good percentages can almost always find a ton of pretty much free offense in that area of the court. Why not exploit that?

So while the meta is not to shoot much mid range because of efficiency, shooting midrange would actually be going countermeta against modern NBA defenses. As more and more teams adapt to the modern NBA game, we might actually see a resurgence of the midrange for this reason. Low key, keep an eye out of the DeRozan Spurs this year. There are going to have a fascinating midrange game.

5. Bigs Don't Matter:

This one is probably my biggest pet peeves because a lack of good true bigs is why the Celtics have been getting consistently hammered inside since Perkins was traded. This only changed just last year when we added Baynes to Horford. I can't state enough how important having good bigs is. They are also one of the hardest things to find in the NBA so it should always be a priority to have them.

Admittedly, the way I phrased this with "bigs don't matter" is a bit of an extreme and oversimplified representation because most people who argue this don't take it quite this far. Although, some certainly do. Other will argue that the skill sets needed for bigs are different. While I won't deny that the modern game is requiring most bigs to adapt to it, that isn't the end all be all.

I'll give a couple examples. Gobert is a traditional big. He makes Utah a top 5 defense every year. His rebounding and defense are in the mold of what is most important for a traditional big and he is still incredibly valuable in the modern NBA. DeAndre Jordan has been another one in this defense and rebounding mold. Another example is Jokic. He is a great passer for a big, which is more of a modern thing. He really helps makes Denver's offense work. But he is also slow and not particularly great on defense because of it. Modern wisdom is that bigs need to be able to switch onto the perimeter. But neither Gobert or Jokic are particularly good at this and both have a huge impact on their perspective teams. Gobert still has an enormous defensive impact.

The next point I want to get into is the NBA's big talent. I think there has been a relative lack of it in the modern game this past decade and that has been more of the reason why there was less emphasis on true bigs than the role itself not being important. Part of this could be the fact that the NBA is changing and it took awhile to adapt. The Roy Hibbert's and the Jahlil Okafor's (while I still say they were both wildly overrated in the first place) may not be suited to the modern NBA. Maybe most bigs who aren't elite like Gobert do need to become more mobile and have more general modern NBA skills. But it's only been relatively recently that a substantial number of bigs who fit that mold better have come into the league. In fact, I think several of them came just in the 2018 draft like Bamba or Jarren Jackson Jr.

Whatever the reason, bigs still matter particularly for defense and rebounding. We appear to have a greater number of viable big prospects developing now. We should see a switch in this philosophy soon as more people start to wake up and realize that bigs actually do matter quite a bit.

6. Mindlessly try to copy whatever Golden State does.

This is hear because a lot of the modern NBA trends are modeled after Golden State. And this is why I bring this up. I have run into a few people who tried to use the logic of, "Golden State does it so it must be good." But that really depends on a lot of factors. What might be good for them might not be good for another team. It's a copycat league. I get it. It makes a certain amount of sense that teams would try and replicate what the most dominant team has been doing. And so it is predictable that modern NBA trends would evolve around what the most successful NBA team in recent years is doing. But is it really smart to try and replicate something that is likely unreplicatable?

The Kings traded for Buddy Hield because they thought he was the next Steph Curry, which you probably won't ever find. That move was underwhelming. Atlanta traded back to get their alleged next Steph Curry in undersized guard Trae Young and tried to get bargain basement Klay Thompson by drafting Kevin Huerter. Their knock off version of Golden State almost certainly won't be as good even if it isn't a total failure.

Even if you could eventually replicate what Golden State does, the NBA might be a completely different league by the time that comes to fruition. It's much better to try and stay ahead of the evolving NBA meta rather than to become a mindless follower and chase from behind.

  • Now that I have said my peace on what I think about conventional wisdom on the modern NBA meta, I can get to the main point of the article: What's next?

As I stated before, the meta is always changing. Nothing lasts forever. Someday, what we consider the modern NBA today will change and be old news. Teams will find the next trend(s) and go to hop on that bandwagon. And I think I've found that new trend: Size.

That's right. SIZE IS THE NEXT GREAT NBA TREND. The NBA is getting bigger and bigs are actually getting more important as a result.

This is because you need big people to defend other big people. We know the NBA requires you to switch more. NBA basketball is a game that is becoming more and more about exploiting every last weakness in the opposing team's roster. So if they can't match up with your size, they have a huge disadvantage particularly inside. With the NBA getting bigger, there will be more size to match ups with. I'm going to PROVE that to you now...

1. The NBA is always getting bigger.

That's the trend. In general, the average player has gotten taller and this is a widely accepted fact about the NBA. In most sports in general, at least in the USA, the average general size of athletes is increasing. There are quite a number of people who have looked into this already. So I'll just list a couple NBA related sources for you to look at if you are interested...

Source1: http://www.tothemean.com/2014/08/26/height-distributions-in-nba.html

Source2: https://bballbreakdown.com/2015/03/14/the-historical-profile-of-the-nba-player-1947-2015/

You can find more quite easily with a quick Google (or similar search engine) search. Other than that, I'm going to consider this common knowledge. Since the NBA is getting bigger on average, and since that trend is more or less continuing, logic dictates you will need bigger and bigger players to matchup. We see the effect of this already with the newly placed emphasis on wings. People realized it took a larger person to match up with the larger people in front court positions and a quicker person to matchup with the faster people in backcourt position. Wings represent the holy grail of both traits.

However, it's only a matter of time before people realize the importance of bigs (particularly mobile bigs) in this regard as well. The average size trend hasn't shown any real signs of leveling out. Obviously, anything can happen. But logic dictates that increasing length will continue to be a factor. And then only the bigs will be big enough to matchup with certain players. This is the case now and has, in some respects, always been the case that you needed a big to matchup with another big. It should also be noted that most bigs were outliers in NBA history simply based on their extreme heights, and that those players historically have differentiated from the league average more. So you always needed bigs to match up with other outlier bigs. But as more size gets added to the league, it's becoming less outlier. It will become an increasingly important factor to have players to matchup in general.

2. Small guards are disappearing.

A lot of people seem to believe this. But not everyone seems to realize exactly what the implications are. You see, wings have already essentially taken over for the SF/SG/PF. Wings are considered more or less as the same type of player who can fit those three roles. Now I think the PF position might be taken back by certain bigs. But there is nothing to stop wings from crowding out PGs like they did SGs.

The problem is the size makes them too vulnerable on defense. We saw this with Lebron switching onto Rozier in the playoffs. Rozier is a good defender, but he just isn't big enough to make that matchup feasible. The next evolution in the NBA is going to be wings taking over PG because they have the size to match up defensively. All we need to prove this is an athletic switchy wing prospect like RJ Barrett or an athletic switchy young PG with size and length like Frank Ntilikina. Look at the trends and then look at these guys. It only makes sense that a larger player at PG would eliminate the vulnerability players like Curry, Irving, and even Rozier (despite him being a good defender) have on defense. Again, the NBA is becoming more and more about exploiting matchups and opposing lineup weakness. THE NBA is also increasing in average size. In the future, teams without that size weakness at starting PG are going to have an increasingly big advantage over teams that still have that issue.

I want to be clear. I'm not saying that there will be no small PGs, particularly off the bench. But it's going to harder and harder for smaller PGs to hide defensively as the NBA gets larger. So either the PG has to be so elite offensively (like Irving, Westbrook, or Curry) that it doesn't matter so much that they are a defensive liability or they have to be bigger. Basically, anything less than a top rate scoring PG needs more size.

3. The NBA teams are getting longer.

This is sort of related to point number one except this point is more roster focused. Instead of averages, I want to talk about lineups. More and more NBA teams are getting prominent 7 footers (or at least players in the ballpark of that) at multiple positions. I noticed now that there are some NBA rosters starting to show an alarming trend in size increase in this regard and in general. Unfortunately for us, this phenomenon appears to be most pronounced in the East right now. That also means it will be more likely to impact us. Since this relationship to the East is so important, I wanted to set aside some examples to illustrate this point.

Philadelphia 76ers: This is the example most fans can probably relate to best because of their hype. Joel Embiid is a 7 foot + monster center with like a 7'6ish wingspan and Ben Simmons is a 6'11ish behemoth of a PG with a 7 foot wingspan. If Embiid stays healthy and Simmons develops, this is a team that is going to really force us to match up with it's size in the foreseeable future. And if Simmons develops a shot, he is going to be a massive problem. The 76ers don't even have to add more height to this because Simmons is such an advantage for them at PG and the same can be said for Embiid at center. But even with their current roster, Saric is 6'10 and Covington is 6'9 with a 7'2 wingspan.

My point is Philly's length is just plain absurd. In a lot of ways, they really are going kind of countermeta to the modern NBA. Where conventional wisdom says small ball is important and bigs aren't, Philly is creating a team of giants with their center as a major cog. And in a lot of ways, they almost have the perfect core pieces on their roster for the direction the NBA might be going in.

New York Knicks: I know I have talked a lot about the whole Irving situation. Those who know me well (or at least my opinions) may remember that I don't think they will be good enough to attract Irving next offseason. But how about a few years out instead of just one? Different story. What scares me about the Knicks is the possibility of their young core. Porzingis is still Porzingis. But Ntilikina is an underrated piece with size and length. If the Knicks are smart (I know that hasn't been the case but you know what I mean) then Ntilikina will be their PG of the future. But then they also have Mitchell Robinson and kevin Knox. It's early, but they already seem like hits. I'll do a size breakdown:

  • PG - Frank Ntilikina: 6'5 with a 7'1 wingspan and there are "credible rumors" he's also grown an inch or two on top of that.
  • SG/SF - Kevin Knox: 6'9 with a 7'0 wingspan
  • Other SG/SF - Whoever the F they want at 6'7+ (Likely a wing)
  • PF - Kristaps Porzingis: 7'3 with a 7'6 wingspan
  • C - Mitchell Robinson: 7'1 with a 7'4 wingspan

Imagine a PG with a 7'1 wingspan being their shortest player in the court? That sounds disgustingly good. All in all, this is a team that could have even scarier overall length than the 76ers. Again, their young core is a ways out so they will obviously need some time to develop. But in a few years, this team could be a monster both literally and figuratively.

Orlando Magic:

This is another team with a potentially scary team length. Except this one is almost entirely the front court. Bamba is 7 feet with a 7'10 wingspan. Let me reiterate that so it can sink in. Bamba has a 7'10 wingspan! Jonathan Isaac is their PF at 6'10 with a 7'1 wingspan. Aaron Gordon is their star SF at 6'9 and yet another 7'0 wingspan. It's hard to know how exactly it will all mesh so this is admittedly a bit premature. But the possibility for the future there is undeniable. The Magic's backcourt is a bit less settled so we'll see on that front. However, their front court is potentially going to be so hard to matchup with that it hardly matters.

Chicago Bulls:

This one is a little less underwhelming until you consider 7'0 Lauri Markkanen is their 3 point shooting stud stretch 4 who will play PF. At center, Wendell Carter Jr. is 6'10 but with a 7'4.5 wingspan. At least Lauri's wingspan is only like 6'11. They just signed Jabari parker to be their SF, who is 6'8ish with a 7'0 wingspan. Who knows if that will work out, but it's something. Chandler Hutchison is a prospect I think a lot of people slept on. He's a 6'7 wing with a 7'1 wingspan. He could be an SF or even deadlier an SG and that would add some length to their lineup. I'm not sure exactly where Dunn and Lavine fit here. But Dunn is 6'4 with a 6'9 wingspan. While it isn't overwhelming for a PG, it is still pretty decent size at the position. Lavine has similar measurements at 6'5 with a 6'8 wingspan. It is also worth mentioning the team also had Robin Lopez and Bobby Portis, at least for now.

Admittedly, Chicago's height and length potential isn't as a scary right now as the previous teams I brought up. It is also still up in the air exactly where everyone will fit and who won't. However, there is still the potential for a fairly long lineup here.

Milwaukee Bucks:

I want to be brief here. Giannis Antetokounmpo is 6'11 with a 7'3 wingspan. I know he's not playing PG anymore, but Giannis is basically a longer, more developed, and more scoring oriented Ben Simmons. Even as an SF, that's absurd. If Milwaukee finds a way to add a legit stud center to him, then they will basically have their own version of the Embiid/Simmons affect the 76ers enjoy. And if Thon Maker ever develops, he is 7'1 with a 7'3 wingspan and can play PF or C.

Then look at a few other key players. Middleton is 6'8 with a 6'11 wingspan. Brogdon is 6'5 with a 6'11 wingspan. Even Tony snell is 6'7 with a 7'0 wingspan. They got a lot of overall length on that team if their new coach can get the most out of them.

Indiana Pacers:

This is mostly here due to the potential of Turner. Myles Turner is 6'11 with a 7'4 wingspan. Domantas Sabonis is 6'10 with a 6'11 wingspan, which is crowding 7 feet but still manageable. However, Ike Anigbogu is 6'10 with a 7'6 wingspan. Him at C and Turner at PF could create quite a long duo. I'm not going to get into the rest of their roster because the Pacers are honestly the furthest away here in this regard. But even a Turner/Sabonis core could force us to go a bit bigger.

DO YOU GET MY POINT YET THAT THE NBA IS GETTING BIGGER?

I just rattled off 6 teams in the East alone. I didn't count teams like the Pistons, Heat, Wizards, and even Cavs who all have some potential to put together giant lineups. This also just includes the potentially foreseeable future. You never know what moves, signings, or prospects might emerge to put other teams in the giant size threat threshold. Either way, the trends and roster projections are what they are. We will probably have to contend with it.

HOW DO WE MATCH UP WITH THAT SIZE?

The obvious answer is go big. The obvious answer today is go big Horford/Baynes. But those aren't long term solutions. Now I want to be 100% clear that this isn't a short term concern. I'm not predicting the floor will just drop out from the modern NBA and suddenly every team will have to be massive to compete. I would agree with people who say that Horford and Baynes should be ok for the next two seasons. But it's after that where I'm worried.

We don't have anyone we know we can rely on to go big in the future. Maybe Robert Williams? If he develops then great. But even if Williams miraculously works out, which is no guarantee, we don't have that second person to match up there. We don't have a wing truly suited to full time PF who could better match up with a giant. We don't have a PG who can compare size wise with Ntilikina or Simmons.

Picture what happens to the Celtics a few years out. Baynes/Horford get older and/or are no longer with the team. Teams like Philly, Orlando, and New York become increasing threats with their size and youth development. As time goes on, it's going to become more and more important that the Celtics can cover for their size weaknesses in the roster. How will we do that? How do we handle the kind of size the future NBA meta will bring?

FanPosts are fan-created content and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of CelticsBlog. Be respectful and keep it clean. Thanks.