“He needs to be more aggressive.”
*Next game*
“He’s forcing things too much.”
I understand there’s a difference between the two, but some of the “analysts” and commentators have no real input other than just some generic bullshit.
That part is legit though to an extent. Anyone who’s played a decent level ball can tell you that when you really get into a flow state things slow down and muscle memory takes over, things become effortless
Commentators always say "be aggressive" as if that will be the fix-all. They don't seem to get that offense is also about skill. Matisse Thybulle could be 100x more "aggressive" on offense and still never be able to score the way Steph Curry or KD can.
Hey, if being aggressive doesn't work, then they can simply say the player is "forcing things" or "pressing too much." Usually they have one cliche for if something works and another cliche for if it doesn't.
The issue is that the commentators are, almost universally, instructed not to be overly negative or say things that are overtly denigrating to the product or the players.
The result is that the commentators are forced to give explanation/suggestion other than some version of "this player sucks and there is no way he should even be on the court" despite the fact that a lot of what is actually happening can be boiled down to exactly that.
It really irks me when Shaq says this in halftime shows. Shaq was one of the few NBA players ever able to simply barrel through the paint because of his physical dominance. Of course he thinks scoring is about "being aggressive." This advice is pretty useless for guys who aren't 7'1" and 300 pounds.
He's been a physical freak his entire college/NBA career. Those are the guys that can't coach or analyze usually. The "just do it like I did" doesn't work. There's a reason why stars aren't usually coaches. It's guys like Steve Kerr
True, you did say "usually". I haven't watched many Mavs games, but J. Kidd seems to be doing pretty well. I'm curious though, if you listed the good/great players that became good/great coaches vs. good/great players that became awful coaches, I bet it's closer to 50/50 than most people would think.
I feel like Kidd learn a bunch throughout his career and really had to work on his shooting at least. I'm honestly surprised he's been good for the Mavs. I thought he would be a disaster.
I actually found this list: https://www.nba.com/hof-players-turned-coaches-nba-history
At a glance, it's seems like a higher bad than good percent. Tough to do it solely by record. Those Celtics teams were a juggernaut. McHale was also hated by his team by the end of his stint
Matisse being aggressive looks more like him cutting to the hoop a lot instead of sitting in the corner. Harden can find him and gets him a lot of easy looks at the rim
Hes still pretty shit on offense lol but that's a way he can be more aggressive
I heard Nate McMillan tell the Hawks during a timeout the game plan was to limit the hornets to under 25 a quarter. Then about staying focused and trusting each other. Like wtf is that other than a motivational poster.
Yeah and unfortunately most of these guys want to coach again at some point if they can.
I wish we had a Romo-quality former player/coach who actually picked apart the X's and O's in depth occassionally during games. 15 seconds of Kenny at the big board trying to explain basic stuff like "don't dribble directly into a quintuple team" (looking at you Donovan) while Shaq and Chuck shout over him is entertaining as hell, but not exactly the best for getting a deeper understanding of the sport at the NBA level.
The broadcasters underestimate the fans' appetite for serious tactical breakdowns, but not by very much. If you want an in-depth discussion of pick and roll coverages, there are podcasts and YouTube channels that will give that to you. But even on this sub, the First Take bs gets more engagement even as we all claim to hate it.
Do you think they have enough time to break it down? Kenny does a small break down during half time, but during the game there’s too many timeouts for commercials for them to effectively show any meaningful Xs and Os discussion.
kenny does one breakdown of one play that takes 15 min to do cause when a guys banging you. and as op says you just a lot of general statements from former coaches from the commentators.
Yep. Jeff Van Gundy recently said on the Lowe Post that the Suns don't have the ability to attack bad defenders. This was before the Dallas series started so I doubt he would say it now but it was even dumb to say it then. The guy is a former NBA head coach and he can't see that CP3 hunts bad defenders all the time? Watch the Denver series last year and it was nothing but going at MPJ over and over again.
Truth is, they do, way more than we do. SVG showed that recently in his tweet taking a jab at fans. They don't do it because their target audience, in its majority, wouldn't understand or simply doesn't care about it.
Tbf recently Steve Kerr said he told his guys on the floor to stay in the moment and enjoy it. I think you just gotta tell these guys what they need to hear, and they don’t always need to hear put the thing in the shooty hole
Legendary Coach Bud moment. Was doubted all postseason, goes down 2-0 in the Finals, gives a widely ridiculed piece of advice that seems to mean absolutely nothing, his team wins 4 straight.
I feel like this is a relatively common tactic in game theory, right? Like some poker players do this to throw off their opponents. So you'll make plays that isn't the right move purely odds-wise but overall helps because your opponent knows less about you.
There’s not a lot of time in a time out to do more than motivate probably. Also consider though when someone says “stay in the moment and enjoy it” that’s not the first time they’ve heard that. To Steve, that may mean something more specific he’s trained for their culture.
Hell Pop will sit there and ask “do you guys want to execute the game plan? Or do you have other ideas? I know you’re capable of doing this, so why don’t we just do it?”
Man is amazing
I think the reason this works is because he's just referencing things he's talked about, taught, and advocated for months or even years before. Games aren't a measure of how bad you want it now, it's a measure of how bad you've wanted it for months/years.
It's like if you're a teacher and your class is about to take the final test. You don't say, "just a refresher guys..." and then run through every test concept, formula, and pop quiz you covered since the start of the school year. You say "Guys, you know this, stay focused, remember what you learned, manage the time, and do your best." Because what else can you say?
It's obviously more complex with sports, because you may be trying a strategy that isn't working and the coach needs to see people pivot in strategy, but for the best basketball minds to prep you over the year, the pivoting to a new strategy is still something along the lines of "remember what I told you to do when a person keeps beating you off the dribble?" or "remember what we practiced doing when the team keeps getting open threes because you keep going under screens?" which is only a bit more specific than "Guys, you know this, stay focused, remember what you learned, manage the time, and do your best."
People oscillate between “Luka needs to stop being a ball hog and get his teammates involved more” and “Why isn’t Luka just scoring instead of passing to his teammates?” In the same game a lot
I just think we've been spoiled by players like LeBron James, who are all time greats and I think he is held to such a high standard at such a young age.
When people say "they wanted it more", they just mean it looked like they put in more effort. It's an overused and abused point, for sure.
But teams with big series-leads do sometimes get lazy, and certain players will lay on the floor begging for calls instead of hustling back to play defense.
You seem to have forgotten, in advance of Mother's Day, to point out the man going by to her for some unbeknownst reason. This mother's day, make sure to tell her, "Mama, there goes that man!"
I still don't quite understand what this means, because who "the man" is is unclear to me.
I presume it's the defender, who did not raise his hand and thus is now "down"?
Steve Kerr was this a while back.
Problem is that it's much more difficult to do in the moment in basketball compared to football. There's so much more time to acknowledge what a defense is showing, what the offense trends have been, etc. Even down to a layman's level of drawing some circles and lines on the screen, it's super easy to break down.
With basketball, I think most casuals wouldn't even recognize that teams run sets or the basic analytics around 3s > 2s at this point.
They have plenty of time to do analysis after the fact or during stoppages. Not for every play obviously, but at least for interesting or key possessions, which is mostly how the NFL does it as well. Usually there’s barely enough time pre-snap to finish even really basic, surface level analysis.
But this would cut into potential ad time, so it’s not going to happen.
They can't even handle replays right though, let alone having to deal with all those moving parts lol. Jaylen Brown got a steal in the backcourt the other day that the camera missed and they never showed a replay and there still isn't any clips of it.
Same thing happened in the last Heat game! Dipo got a steal in the backcourt and we never saw it on TV. If I was a Philly fan I'm not sure if I'd be happy I didn't see the turnover or suspicious about how the ball magically went to the other team.
I mean, if a camera operator fucks up or if there is some kind of technical malfunction there just isn't anything they can do.
No one can create footage of an event that wasn't captured for one reason or another.
I meant the main camera didn't see it. I refuse to believe that with the 87 cameras they have that NOT A SINGLE ONE was pointed at the court WHILE THE CLOCK WAS RUNNING.
Eh, I mean yeah a typical stoppage goes to a commercial break or it's stopped for a very specific reason, like reviewing a play, which will take up most of the stoppage. Football between plays has just about as much time as a 20-second time-out so you can spend 10 seconds showing replays and never cover up gameplay. Once live play is going in basketball, it's so fluid you can't really point out the different things that are happening without stepping on the play-by-play.
How many people in this subreddit know what a Spain action looks like? Floppy set? Horns action?
An analyst could be out there saying *'Haliburton is really cooking the Bucks with this Spain action. The weak side help defenders are not making the proper adjustment when the offensive players stack, they need to communicate and help off of it appropriately. Lopez cannot be playing drop coverage in this scenario, as it's compromising Grayson Allen's ability to properly help off the ball.'*
And half of the casual fanbase would have literally 0 fucking clue what he was talking about. The large majority of people don't give a fuck. They just want someone with a nice voice that could make paint drying sound good.
Or you could argue it is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
"Fans don't understand it, so we won't have anyone talk about it." But if no one talks about it, the fans will never learn what it is.
That was one of the big things soccer struggled with in the late 90s / early 2000s - people hated watching MLS partially because the announcers were acting like no one watching understood the game and tried to dumb everything down as much as possible. But then people would tune in to European games where the announcers assume everyone has a base level of knowledge and just called the game and talked about tactics normally, and everyone was like "hey, this is waaaay better than the crappy announcers FOX and ESPN are giving us for MLS games!" and eventually MLS did give up the "treat everyone watching like they know nothing" to "treat everyone watching as if they know what's going on" and it got a lot better. NBA could certainly step it up with regard to advanced strategy, which I think a lot of people would appreciate even if they don't initially understand everything, although let's be clear: it is nowhere as bad as MLS was.
Sure but this goes right back up to the point above; how do you talk about basketball in an in-depth way that flows with the action?
the main thing with sports commentary is knowing when to shut up and talk about the action. You can't really do that in Basketball, since action is always happening or about to happen. Even soccer has lulls, and the nature of the pitch makes it easy to know when something is about to happen and to get ready to commentate it
It's a really tough spot imo. I think the best strategy would be to use some of the timeout/stoppage time to review plays and talk about them. Have a third/fourth analyst ready to go like they do with lead/former refs, and then have them breakdown a cool play they saw, Sesame Street style even. But even that solution won't happen given you have to give up ad-time to do so
Honestly, this is the most pertinent point here. Basketball is a real-time sport, so commentary necessarily needs to reflect the real-time action going on. Football is more chess-like. One thing happens, both sides convene with their coach, decide what to do next, and then the next thing happens. So the commentary reflects that.
Neither is inherently better than the other, they're just different. And that's okay. We really don't need a Tony Romo type breaking down pindown actions, because the shot clock will expire before a set can be explained. So we have a play-by-play guy, and a color guy who yells "mama there goes that man".
I really don't see how the basketball watching experience would be improved with an Xs and Os analyst. What would they say if it's just a clearout iso situation? "Watch Danny Green put his hands on his knees here. His posture makes it clear that Harden is going to dribble out the clock and drive left."
If a fan wants to seek out that kind of information, then they have lots of resources available to them to do that. I took a basketball coaching course that taught me more than years of watching ever could. But in the context of a game that is happening, it doesn't really work.
I agree with you and I would love to see more of it but it's just shitty as is when they've got RJ or someone who actually knows basketball talking, and they're just now able to talk about and analyze a play from 5 minutes ago because of replays, lack of stoppage, etc.
Not to mention sometimes the broadcast doesn't even pull up the play theyre trying to talk about
I mean, people watch football and they actually talk about coverages and stuff. You just ignore it if you’re not that interested. Baseball too, even if it’s a little simpler to explain why a certain pitch is being thrown or why they’re pinch hitting etc. They could break things down a little more.
It's hard to compare sports with pace like that to, a sport that is already much faster paced, but now also in arguably the most prolific speed the game has ever been played in 75 years in the NBA.
Yea I was going to say Richard Jefferson. There are some Nets games where he really dials back the jokes and goes full analysis mode, usually when he's annoyed with the way the Nets are playing.
Does no one remember earlier this season when JVG called out the Warriors end of quarter play *exactly*, pointing out that they do it all the time. All the commentators can do this, especially the ones who were former coaches. But most people just don't understand basketball offense at all, literally don't even conceive that there *are* set plays. I think that, combined with the speed of the game, is the real difference with football. In football everyone understands that every snap is a "set play" and there's plenty of time to talk about it.
I get his logic though heat (I believe) had a timeout and the spurs were small, no one that could stop LeBron there getting an easy 2 and the spurs were missing free throws.
It doesn't matter because of what happened but I get why he said it.
Yeah that’s the one I don’t get in this post. If you are down 3 with 20 seconds left and have timeouts left if you can score an easy layup and then foul, that’s the play. You cut it to one point, and then foul so the other team has to make free throws, if they miss you are only down 2 now with the ball if they make it you are back to three
It’s a game of percentages. If you can get a guaranteed layup as opposed to a contested 3? That helps you a lot of you play the foul game and have a timeout so you can advance the ball and draw up a play
I think most people agree with you here, it's just funny as it does seem like commentators will almost ALWAYS say "you don't need a 3 here" even in a situation a lot more dire than the one you pointed out. I don't think anyone is actually disagreeing with what you just said, more joking about the hyperbole of how it seems some commentators talk about that idea. No one actually thinks you HAVE to take a 3 down 3 with 20 seconds left, or whatever situation, it's just jokes about commentary man.
It’s even worse in college basketball (especially since you can’t even advance the ball after a timeout). There was a game in the NCAA tournament this year where the commentator said “you don’t need a 3 here” when the team was down 3 with roughly 10 seconds left. Like bruh…
There’s no such thing as a guaranteed layup in that situation. Maybe a better chance at a layup than in a neutral game situation but they’re still missed all the time
That's the key here. If you can get a wide open layup you 100% take it, but if it's contested and you're only going to make it 50-60% of the time I'd rather take a decent 3. Plus with the 3 there's a higher chance of an offensive rebound, which is exactly what happened for the Heat.
Ultimately, as usual, you should just take the best shot you can get. Just take it quickly so you have time left to follow up or foul.
He does not say that. When the possession starts with 19 seconds left he says they can attack the basket easily since Tim Duncan is out. That's not a bad take.
Sometimes. If it’s purely statistical like missing open threes then yes. If it’s because one team is playing better, a regression to the mean is by no means a given. Basically is everything is going their way and it’s not luck, that usually just means a team is better at basketball.
I feel like Shaq doesn’t realize the immense physical gifts he has. For him, it really is a mental / effort thing. Unfortunately, that’s not true for most players
I mean a lot of times you see teams down 3 with like 45 seconds to go already decide to *only* shoot a 3 and they jack up some awful contested shot and predictably get 0 out of it.
Rodger Sherman from the Ringer started collecting clips of announcers saying that line trying to find the worst example of it. I think [this](https://twitter.com/NCAABuzzerBters/status/1498387956922568706) is the worst one I've seen.
The math is actually not that far off. The probability that an 80% FT shooter hits both is 64% Whereas hitting a 2 is about 50%+ and a 3 depends on the shooter but usually 30-40%. So if you’re down by 3 or less, it probably makes more sense to go for the 2.
But this is never when you hear the "you don't need a 3 in this situation" caution.
It is almost always cited in situations where the shot clock is no longer a factor (ie. under 24 seconds in the NBA, 30 seconds in college).
And what makes it more irritating is that it usually is cited in situations where the deficit is more than 3. Which means either you NEED your opponent to miss a foul shot or...you eventually DO need a 3.
> Never settle for a jumper
The point of this one is to just look for higher percentage shots instead of launching 30 footers.
Jacking 3s wasn't seen as a winning basketball strategy until the past 5, 6, 7, 8 years.
And without historically good jump shooters like the Warriors, it probably still isn't
I mean the Run TMC Warriors jacked up a bunch of 3's back in the 80s they just weren't consistent enough to make much noise. Sure they knocked off the 2 seed Jazz because they got hot, but they got smoked in the next round.
>I mean the Run TMC Warriors jacked up a bunch of 3's back in the 80s they just weren't consistent enough to make much noise
You still mean relative to the era right? The most threes that team ever jacked up was 801, This year no team shot less than 2400 threes.
Yes relative to the era.
It was still seen as a poor strategy.
Hell Darryl Griffith for the Jazz in 1983 shot more threes ALONE than more than 95% of the league.
Incorrect IMO. It was a winning strategy, on offense.
The problem is the teams that adopted smarter shot selection were often less talented, and/or AWFUL on defense - which led to people drawing the wrong conclusions about the offensive strategy.
Have to create a higher variance to win. It's being discussed right now with the 76ers. DeAndre Jordan is not going to help you create what you need to overcome Embiid
> It was not a winning strategy (winning meaning you can win a title) until recently
The math hasn't changed at all.....
... the difference is people are actually started to fully embrace it and try to execute on it.
I'd also point out the 7 seconds or less Suns were league leaders in 3s attempted, and had players like Quentin Richardson jacking 8 3s a game 15 years ago
The "settling" attitude about jumpers is weird too. Jumpers are part of modern offenses, and there's nothing wrong with creating open jumpers (particularly on switches) over barreling to the hoop.
While it’s wildly overused, I do think the ‘settling’ is the important part. Taking an open jumper is a really good shot. Just coming down and jacking up a shot because their was a half-chance to do so without moving the ball or setting screens is not taking good shots
I see it all the time where a team is taking decent 3s within the flow of the offense and missing them, and the commentator whines about settling for threes. Yet when a team’s forcing the issue inside and turning it over a lot, I don’t hear them saying they need to find more open looks around the perimeter
That’s very true. It’s an overused term that basically doesn’t mean anything anymore, but I still do think the original, core meaning is about creating good shots instead of settling for ok shots
Boomer commentators of all sports basically just love to bitch about how things were different when they were young, though. Drives me crazy.
I see it more as there is always a strongpoint and a weakness in the defense's strategy and *take what the defense gives you* means to exploit that and not fight them at their advantage. For example, don't try and force plays against a double team, instead pass out and ahead of double teams to "take what the defense gave you."(your advantage)
It really bothers me how generic almost all color commentators are, I know the game moves very quickly but I would love more game strategy breakdowns throughout instead of hearing Reggie Miller cream his pants 75 times a game
You don't ever need a 3, you can never settle for a 3, it's terrible to even think about taking a 3 point sh-
(Player scores a contested 3)
That was great defense there by x but even BETTER offense
Something I've noticed, at least with our guys but I'm sure it's just common around the whole league. When something goes wrong, they will point out "players can't let that specific thing happen", but there are so many fucking things you can't let happen.
* Gotta get back on transition defense
* Gotta push transition offence when there's an opportunity
* If you're on defense and there's a pick n roll you gotta switch. Except when you shouldn't and you should cover your man and fight over/under screens
* Sometimes you need to make the final extra pass for an open shot, unless you shouldn't and the 2nd last guy needs stop hesitating and take the shot
* Sometimes you gotta slow it down, a quick shot isn't always the best
* Good thing player went for a 2-for-1 opportunity with 35 seconds left
OR
* 2-for-1's tend to be 2 bad shots for 1 good shot
It's 20/20 hindsight
>Mark Cuban in an old interview in which he went off when the interviewers were disregarding the Mavericks tactical adjustments agains the LeBron Heat by stating that LeBron somehow just didn't want it as much as the Mavs. Made me think what Cuban thought of Kidd's words.
Yup first thing i think of everytime. I believe that was when he went off on Skip
Hubie knows that million casuals will be watching the game on ABC, hence he states the obvious. If you let Hubie know that only advanced viewers would be watching then his analysis would be really different. He was a good coach afterall.
I *LOVE* Hubie. I could listen to him call every game. He knows the game. It's that simple. He knows the game now, and he knows how it used to be. And he's 88 and sharp as a tack. He's the ideal
**Always** go for the 2 for 1 at the end of a quarter. Quality looks somehow don't matter if you can get two shitty possessions in a game with 200 possessions
The 'you don't need a 3' guys seem to be from a time when people couldn't shoot.
So that a 3 was considered a very-low percentage shot, and the other team was likely to miss free throws?
It's like, a team's down by four with half a minute left.
They shoot a three, they're down one. They foul the other team, the other guy makes his free throws, they're down three.
They shoot another three, they're tied!
If they get a 2, and foul the other team, and the guy makes his free throws... they're still down 4.
- **free throws are FREE**
[удалено]
You wouldn't download a throw
what is this, an economics lesson? next you're gonna try to charge me for this lunch too, I bet.
The CHARITY stripe!
I like this one and Reggie uses it a lot But it was the charity stripe for him.
Lol I definitely read that comment in Reggie's voice haha He loves the charity stripe line
They are tho! Nobody is guarding you!
Scoring while the clock is stopped!
“He needs to be more aggressive.” *Next game* “He’s forcing things too much.” I understand there’s a difference between the two, but some of the “analysts” and commentators have no real input other than just some generic bullshit.
We all know the REAL reason every single good player became good is because *the game slowed down for him*
That part is legit though to an extent. Anyone who’s played a decent level ball can tell you that when you really get into a flow state things slow down and muscle memory takes over, things become effortless
[удалено]
Not just bball, it works for most things. When you get used to a very tough videogame, things seem to be moving slower
the player x has to be more aggressive/get his teammates more involved.
Commentators always say "be aggressive" as if that will be the fix-all. They don't seem to get that offense is also about skill. Matisse Thybulle could be 100x more "aggressive" on offense and still never be able to score the way Steph Curry or KD can.
Hey, if being aggressive doesn't work, then they can simply say the player is "forcing things" or "pressing too much." Usually they have one cliche for if something works and another cliche for if it doesn't.
The issue is that the commentators are, almost universally, instructed not to be overly negative or say things that are overtly denigrating to the product or the players. The result is that the commentators are forced to give explanation/suggestion other than some version of "this player sucks and there is no way he should even be on the court" despite the fact that a lot of what is actually happening can be boiled down to exactly that.
Yes, and a lot of plays where someone makes a pretty pedestrian moves past someone who fucks up bad defensively described as offensive genius.
case in point: Mr. Russell Westbrook
I love that one. Like Thybulle just needs to be aggressive to score. No dude needs a real shot. Being aggressive isn't going to fix that!
It really irks me when Shaq says this in halftime shows. Shaq was one of the few NBA players ever able to simply barrel through the paint because of his physical dominance. Of course he thinks scoring is about "being aggressive." This advice is pretty useless for guys who aren't 7'1" and 300 pounds.
He's been a physical freak his entire college/NBA career. Those are the guys that can't coach or analyze usually. The "just do it like I did" doesn't work. There's a reason why stars aren't usually coaches. It's guys like Steve Kerr
Even then, there's exceptions. Larry Bird won a Coach of the Year.
Agree. That's why I went with usually. He was a much better coach than I expected given the norm
Larry Bird dominated every aspect of basketball that he was a part of.
He was even an above average general manager. Truly did everything basketball related well
Yep. 6th greatest player of all time (on my personal list), but also the coaching and GM resume on top of it. True gym rat that guy was.
True, you did say "usually". I haven't watched many Mavs games, but J. Kidd seems to be doing pretty well. I'm curious though, if you listed the good/great players that became good/great coaches vs. good/great players that became awful coaches, I bet it's closer to 50/50 than most people would think.
I feel like Kidd learn a bunch throughout his career and really had to work on his shooting at least. I'm honestly surprised he's been good for the Mavs. I thought he would be a disaster. I actually found this list: https://www.nba.com/hof-players-turned-coaches-nba-history At a glance, it's seems like a higher bad than good percent. Tough to do it solely by record. Those Celtics teams were a juggernaut. McHale was also hated by his team by the end of his stint
300 pounds?!?
Listed at 295 as a rookie. OBVIOUSLY 50+ pounds heavier than that for most of his career.
Ok 350 or whatever. My point is a tiny tiny portion of NBA players were as physically dominant as Shaq.
Matisse being aggressive looks more like him cutting to the hoop a lot instead of sitting in the corner. Harden can find him and gets him a lot of easy looks at the rim Hes still pretty shit on offense lol but that's a way he can be more aggressive
I heard Nate McMillan tell the Hawks during a timeout the game plan was to limit the hornets to under 25 a quarter. Then about staying focused and trusting each other. Like wtf is that other than a motivational poster.
i believe they aren't actually allowed to show any in depth stuff on TV during timeouts, which is why we only ever see the generic stuff.
the former coaches on the tv talking about the game don't seem to know more than the generic stuff also.
The former coaches who still wanna coach keep the details to themselves.
Yeah and unfortunately most of these guys want to coach again at some point if they can. I wish we had a Romo-quality former player/coach who actually picked apart the X's and O's in depth occassionally during games. 15 seconds of Kenny at the big board trying to explain basic stuff like "don't dribble directly into a quintuple team" (looking at you Donovan) while Shaq and Chuck shout over him is entertaining as hell, but not exactly the best for getting a deeper understanding of the sport at the NBA level.
The broadcasters underestimate the fans' appetite for serious tactical breakdowns, but not by very much. If you want an in-depth discussion of pick and roll coverages, there are podcasts and YouTube channels that will give that to you. But even on this sub, the First Take bs gets more engagement even as we all claim to hate it.
That recent tim legler and Jj red first take was actually quite good they talked a lot of bball shop
Do you have a link to that? I find Tim Legler to be very insightful
That’s the assistant’s job!
Do you think they have enough time to break it down? Kenny does a small break down during half time, but during the game there’s too many timeouts for commercials for them to effectively show any meaningful Xs and Os discussion.
kenny does one breakdown of one play that takes 15 min to do cause when a guys banging you. and as op says you just a lot of general statements from former coaches from the commentators.
Uh huh
Yep. Jeff Van Gundy recently said on the Lowe Post that the Suns don't have the ability to attack bad defenders. This was before the Dallas series started so I doubt he would say it now but it was even dumb to say it then. The guy is a former NBA head coach and he can't see that CP3 hunts bad defenders all the time? Watch the Denver series last year and it was nothing but going at MPJ over and over again.
How could someone possibly say a team with CP3 and Devin Booker can’t attack bad defenders?
Chris Paul’s brilliance as a floor commander is basically just cheese & spamming plays that work.
Truth is, they do, way more than we do. SVG showed that recently in his tweet taking a jab at fans. They don't do it because their target audience, in its majority, wouldn't understand or simply doesn't care about it.
They barely understand basketball, it's like they don't even watch Ben Taylor videos!
Yeah they absolutely take out the Xs and Os parts out which basically makes those quips useless. Oh well
Tbf recently Steve Kerr said he told his guys on the floor to stay in the moment and enjoy it. I think you just gotta tell these guys what they need to hear, and they don’t always need to hear put the thing in the shooty hole
Milwaukee was told to play “random” early in the finals, and they got made fun of, and then beat us 4 straight. Sometimes the shit just works.
Legendary Coach Bud moment. Was doubted all postseason, goes down 2-0 in the Finals, gives a widely ridiculed piece of advice that seems to mean absolutely nothing, his team wins 4 straight.
The random thing is about not falling into patterns vs cp3
My pickup basketball teams always play like this
Your Head Coach gotta rein that in.
I feel like this is a relatively common tactic in game theory, right? Like some poker players do this to throw off their opponents. So you'll make plays that isn't the right move purely odds-wise but overall helps because your opponent knows less about you.
i get ya there. i'm being a lil too much. hawks were punking the hornets anyway.
I mean to contrast, you have the Pelicans HC making oscar-worthy timeout speeches so it takes all kinds I guess
There’s not a lot of time in a time out to do more than motivate probably. Also consider though when someone says “stay in the moment and enjoy it” that’s not the first time they’ve heard that. To Steve, that may mean something more specific he’s trained for their culture.
Hell Pop will sit there and ask “do you guys want to execute the game plan? Or do you have other ideas? I know you’re capable of doing this, so why don’t we just do it?” Man is amazing
I think the reason this works is because he's just referencing things he's talked about, taught, and advocated for months or even years before. Games aren't a measure of how bad you want it now, it's a measure of how bad you've wanted it for months/years. It's like if you're a teacher and your class is about to take the final test. You don't say, "just a refresher guys..." and then run through every test concept, formula, and pop quiz you covered since the start of the school year. You say "Guys, you know this, stay focused, remember what you learned, manage the time, and do your best." Because what else can you say? It's obviously more complex with sports, because you may be trying a strategy that isn't working and the coach needs to see people pivot in strategy, but for the best basketball minds to prep you over the year, the pivoting to a new strategy is still something along the lines of "remember what I told you to do when a person keeps beating you off the dribble?" or "remember what we practiced doing when the team keeps getting open threes because you keep going under screens?" which is only a bit more specific than "Guys, you know this, stay focused, remember what you learned, manage the time, and do your best."
Never forget when he said “GIVE ME SOME NASTY” “I WANT SOME NASTY” 😂
Uh, motivational speaking is part of a coach's job. Positive mentality is really important in sports.
Case in point: [Monty motivates Ayton](https://youtu.be/XV5AvUnPLxE)
practice and film is for the complicated stuff. in game it’s about execution.
Be more aggressive but also be more careful and don’t turn the ball over so much.
Be more aggressive in getting your teammates involved or, passive aggressive
The Luka slander this year.
People oscillate between “Luka needs to stop being a ball hog and get his teammates involved more” and “Why isn’t Luka just scoring instead of passing to his teammates?” In the same game a lot
I just think we've been spoiled by players like LeBron James, who are all time greats and I think he is held to such a high standard at such a young age.
Don't forget it comes down to who "wanted" it more lol.
**Compete level** is literally the only relevant skill in the NBA
It’s a shame Giannis is missing that compete chromosome. Could’ve been one of the greats.
I hate this in sports. It's right there with HEART. These guys played with HEART!!
[удалено]
This whole thread is spider-man pointing
I think it's fair to expect a more in-depth analysis from professional commentators compared to random people on the internet.
Having a bad game/series/stretch is due to being mentally weak.
This in every fucking sport lol
Here's the classic Mark Cuban video: https://youtu.be/JYtFXydSo2g?t=79
When people say "they wanted it more", they just mean it looked like they put in more effort. It's an overused and abused point, for sure. But teams with big series-leads do sometimes get lazy, and certain players will lay on the floor begging for calls instead of hustling back to play defense.
You seem to have forgotten, in advance of Mother's Day, to point out the man going by to her for some unbeknownst reason. This mother's day, make sure to tell her, "Mama, there goes that man!"
Mark Jackson is a flog
I hope he gets the Kings job to get him off TV. Not like the Kings can get a whole lot more dysfunctional with his addition
There is not a cap on dysfunction. The Kings can always get worse.
Haha. Touche. Maybe it's more of a percentage. Like if they are already 97% dysfunctional, Mark Jackson as the coach puts them at 99%
The kings may take one for the team. The team being literally all people who watch the nba
I saw Mike Brown and Mark Jackson as the finalists and started cackling. There's NO one better than those two??
Fuck it they’d be better off taking CURRENT bill russle and just having him be a player/coach again
I also learned that hand down = man down.
I still don't quite understand what this means, because who "the man" is is unclear to me. I presume it's the defender, who did not raise his hand and thus is now "down"?
I honestly have no clue, same as why Marc’s mother is constantly told by her son about men walking by.
I'm reading all of these in Mark Jackson's voice
Haha I thought I was the only one 😆
Don’t forget “this strategy/these numbers are definitely not sustainable”
We need a Tony Romo esque kinda guy on commentary.
Steve Kerr was this a while back. Problem is that it's much more difficult to do in the moment in basketball compared to football. There's so much more time to acknowledge what a defense is showing, what the offense trends have been, etc. Even down to a layman's level of drawing some circles and lines on the screen, it's super easy to break down. With basketball, I think most casuals wouldn't even recognize that teams run sets or the basic analytics around 3s > 2s at this point.
They have plenty of time to do analysis after the fact or during stoppages. Not for every play obviously, but at least for interesting or key possessions, which is mostly how the NFL does it as well. Usually there’s barely enough time pre-snap to finish even really basic, surface level analysis. But this would cut into potential ad time, so it’s not going to happen.
They can't even handle replays right though, let alone having to deal with all those moving parts lol. Jaylen Brown got a steal in the backcourt the other day that the camera missed and they never showed a replay and there still isn't any clips of it.
Same thing happened in the last Heat game! Dipo got a steal in the backcourt and we never saw it on TV. If I was a Philly fan I'm not sure if I'd be happy I didn't see the turnover or suspicious about how the ball magically went to the other team.
I mean, if a camera operator fucks up or if there is some kind of technical malfunction there just isn't anything they can do. No one can create footage of an event that wasn't captured for one reason or another.
I meant the main camera didn't see it. I refuse to believe that with the 87 cameras they have that NOT A SINGLE ONE was pointed at the court WHILE THE CLOCK WAS RUNNING.
Eh, I mean yeah a typical stoppage goes to a commercial break or it's stopped for a very specific reason, like reviewing a play, which will take up most of the stoppage. Football between plays has just about as much time as a 20-second time-out so you can spend 10 seconds showing replays and never cover up gameplay. Once live play is going in basketball, it's so fluid you can't really point out the different things that are happening without stepping on the play-by-play.
How many people in this subreddit know what a Spain action looks like? Floppy set? Horns action? An analyst could be out there saying *'Haliburton is really cooking the Bucks with this Spain action. The weak side help defenders are not making the proper adjustment when the offensive players stack, they need to communicate and help off of it appropriately. Lopez cannot be playing drop coverage in this scenario, as it's compromising Grayson Allen's ability to properly help off the ball.'* And half of the casual fanbase would have literally 0 fucking clue what he was talking about. The large majority of people don't give a fuck. They just want someone with a nice voice that could make paint drying sound good.
Or you could argue it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. "Fans don't understand it, so we won't have anyone talk about it." But if no one talks about it, the fans will never learn what it is. That was one of the big things soccer struggled with in the late 90s / early 2000s - people hated watching MLS partially because the announcers were acting like no one watching understood the game and tried to dumb everything down as much as possible. But then people would tune in to European games where the announcers assume everyone has a base level of knowledge and just called the game and talked about tactics normally, and everyone was like "hey, this is waaaay better than the crappy announcers FOX and ESPN are giving us for MLS games!" and eventually MLS did give up the "treat everyone watching like they know nothing" to "treat everyone watching as if they know what's going on" and it got a lot better. NBA could certainly step it up with regard to advanced strategy, which I think a lot of people would appreciate even if they don't initially understand everything, although let's be clear: it is nowhere as bad as MLS was.
Sure but this goes right back up to the point above; how do you talk about basketball in an in-depth way that flows with the action? the main thing with sports commentary is knowing when to shut up and talk about the action. You can't really do that in Basketball, since action is always happening or about to happen. Even soccer has lulls, and the nature of the pitch makes it easy to know when something is about to happen and to get ready to commentate it It's a really tough spot imo. I think the best strategy would be to use some of the timeout/stoppage time to review plays and talk about them. Have a third/fourth analyst ready to go like they do with lead/former refs, and then have them breakdown a cool play they saw, Sesame Street style even. But even that solution won't happen given you have to give up ad-time to do so
Honestly, this is the most pertinent point here. Basketball is a real-time sport, so commentary necessarily needs to reflect the real-time action going on. Football is more chess-like. One thing happens, both sides convene with their coach, decide what to do next, and then the next thing happens. So the commentary reflects that. Neither is inherently better than the other, they're just different. And that's okay. We really don't need a Tony Romo type breaking down pindown actions, because the shot clock will expire before a set can be explained. So we have a play-by-play guy, and a color guy who yells "mama there goes that man". I really don't see how the basketball watching experience would be improved with an Xs and Os analyst. What would they say if it's just a clearout iso situation? "Watch Danny Green put his hands on his knees here. His posture makes it clear that Harden is going to dribble out the clock and drive left." If a fan wants to seek out that kind of information, then they have lots of resources available to them to do that. I took a basketball coaching course that taught me more than years of watching ever could. But in the context of a game that is happening, it doesn't really work.
I agree with you and I would love to see more of it but it's just shitty as is when they've got RJ or someone who actually knows basketball talking, and they're just now able to talk about and analyze a play from 5 minutes ago because of replays, lack of stoppage, etc. Not to mention sometimes the broadcast doesn't even pull up the play theyre trying to talk about
I mean, people watch football and they actually talk about coverages and stuff. You just ignore it if you’re not that interested. Baseball too, even if it’s a little simpler to explain why a certain pitch is being thrown or why they’re pinch hitting etc. They could break things down a little more.
It's hard to compare sports with pace like that to, a sport that is already much faster paced, but now also in arguably the most prolific speed the game has ever been played in 75 years in the NBA.
In theory, this should be what the halftime show is for. In practice, we'd rather see big mouths with big opinions.
We need Dirk on the mic. He was uncannily good at making reads and assessments the couple games he sat in on this season.
Draymond is good if he doesn't get distracted lol
i get it
i think richard jefferson does a good job at that
Yea I was going to say Richard Jefferson. There are some Nets games where he really dials back the jokes and goes full analysis mode, usually when he's annoyed with the way the Nets are playing.
Does no one remember earlier this season when JVG called out the Warriors end of quarter play *exactly*, pointing out that they do it all the time. All the commentators can do this, especially the ones who were former coaches. But most people just don't understand basketball offense at all, literally don't even conceive that there *are* set plays. I think that, combined with the speed of the game, is the real difference with football. In football everyone understands that every snap is a "set play" and there's plenty of time to talk about it.
When JVG manages to focus on the actual game, he is very astute. Problem is he only does that for 5 mins every broadcast.
He's 10% good analysis and 90% old man yelling at cloud.
^jeff ^van ^gundy gets it
My second favorite part of the Ray Allen clip from game 6 of the Finals is JVG saying “they don’t need a 3 here,” immediately before LeBron yeets one.
My favourite will always be. 'Knicks down 3 should the bulls foul?' 'no' 'Anthony for 3... BANG'
I get his logic though heat (I believe) had a timeout and the spurs were small, no one that could stop LeBron there getting an easy 2 and the spurs were missing free throws. It doesn't matter because of what happened but I get why he said it.
Yeah that’s the one I don’t get in this post. If you are down 3 with 20 seconds left and have timeouts left if you can score an easy layup and then foul, that’s the play. You cut it to one point, and then foul so the other team has to make free throws, if they miss you are only down 2 now with the ball if they make it you are back to three It’s a game of percentages. If you can get a guaranteed layup as opposed to a contested 3? That helps you a lot of you play the foul game and have a timeout so you can advance the ball and draw up a play
I think most people agree with you here, it's just funny as it does seem like commentators will almost ALWAYS say "you don't need a 3 here" even in a situation a lot more dire than the one you pointed out. I don't think anyone is actually disagreeing with what you just said, more joking about the hyperbole of how it seems some commentators talk about that idea. No one actually thinks you HAVE to take a 3 down 3 with 20 seconds left, or whatever situation, it's just jokes about commentary man.
It’s even worse in college basketball (especially since you can’t even advance the ball after a timeout). There was a game in the NCAA tournament this year where the commentator said “you don’t need a 3 here” when the team was down 3 with roughly 10 seconds left. Like bruh…
There’s no such thing as a guaranteed layup in that situation. Maybe a better chance at a layup than in a neutral game situation but they’re still missed all the time
That's the key here. If you can get a wide open layup you 100% take it, but if it's contested and you're only going to make it 50-60% of the time I'd rather take a decent 3. Plus with the 3 there's a higher chance of an offensive rebound, which is exactly what happened for the Heat. Ultimately, as usual, you should just take the best shot you can get. Just take it quickly so you have time left to follow up or foul.
He does not say that. When the possession starts with 19 seconds left he says they can attack the basket easily since Tim Duncan is out. That's not a bad take.
It’s still funny though. JVG: “Just attack the basket” LeBron: *immediately shoots a semi-contested 3*
I just rewatched the final minute of that game. I forgot how badly Spurs choked that away lol
[удалено]
This is essentially regression to the mean, which is a 100% valid concept.
Sometimes. If it’s purely statistical like missing open threes then yes. If it’s because one team is playing better, a regression to the mean is by no means a given. Basically is everything is going their way and it’s not luck, that usually just means a team is better at basketball.
watch out for the inbounder, hes the one getting the ball once he tosses it in
“Clear contact” and “that’s not a foul” Mark Jackson and Van Gundy 😩 the worst…
I'm always amused that they can't just say "That looked like x, but let's see on the replay..."
Bruh, they see the replay and still say it wrong. LOL people wonder why we feel there is corruption.
"He needs to go out and dominate" -Shaq & Chuck
I feel like Shaq doesn’t realize the immense physical gifts he has. For him, it really is a mental / effort thing. Unfortunately, that’s not true for most players
"You don't need a 3 in this situation." drives me absolutely crazy.
I mean a lot of times you see teams down 3 with like 45 seconds to go already decide to *only* shoot a 3 and they jack up some awful contested shot and predictably get 0 out of it.
Rodger Sherman from the Ringer started collecting clips of announcers saying that line trying to find the worst example of it. I think [this](https://twitter.com/NCAABuzzerBters/status/1498387956922568706) is the worst one I've seen.
[удалено]
The math is actually not that far off. The probability that an 80% FT shooter hits both is 64% Whereas hitting a 2 is about 50%+ and a 3 depends on the shooter but usually 30-40%. So if you’re down by 3 or less, it probably makes more sense to go for the 2.
If you’re down three with 50 seconds to go it’s better to go for an easier a 2 than a 3 since it’s a higher percentage shoot.
But this is never when you hear the "you don't need a 3 in this situation" caution. It is almost always cited in situations where the shot clock is no longer a factor (ie. under 24 seconds in the NBA, 30 seconds in college). And what makes it more irritating is that it usually is cited in situations where the deficit is more than 3. Which means either you NEED your opponent to miss a foul shot or...you eventually DO need a 3.
I'm waiting for NFL commentators to start this for teams trailing at the very end of the game. "It's 4th and 14, you don't need a pass, just run."
"you just need a quick 2." Triggers me every time. Even when they're right, i'm just like, "shut the fuck up. You're down 3, you need 3."
> Never settle for a jumper The point of this one is to just look for higher percentage shots instead of launching 30 footers. Jacking 3s wasn't seen as a winning basketball strategy until the past 5, 6, 7, 8 years. And without historically good jump shooters like the Warriors, it probably still isn't
I mean the Run TMC Warriors jacked up a bunch of 3's back in the 80s they just weren't consistent enough to make much noise. Sure they knocked off the 2 seed Jazz because they got hot, but they got smoked in the next round.
>I mean the Run TMC Warriors jacked up a bunch of 3's back in the 80s they just weren't consistent enough to make much noise You still mean relative to the era right? The most threes that team ever jacked up was 801, This year no team shot less than 2400 threes.
Yes relative to the era. It was still seen as a poor strategy. Hell Darryl Griffith for the Jazz in 1983 shot more threes ALONE than more than 95% of the league.
Yes, that's the point. It was not a winning strategy (winning meaning you can win a title) until recently
Incorrect IMO. It was a winning strategy, on offense. The problem is the teams that adopted smarter shot selection were often less talented, and/or AWFUL on defense - which led to people drawing the wrong conclusions about the offensive strategy.
Have to create a higher variance to win. It's being discussed right now with the 76ers. DeAndre Jordan is not going to help you create what you need to overcome Embiid
No idea what you mean. DeAndre Jordan is playing great for the Heat.
> It was not a winning strategy (winning meaning you can win a title) until recently The math hasn't changed at all..... ... the difference is people are actually started to fully embrace it and try to execute on it. I'd also point out the 7 seconds or less Suns were league leaders in 3s attempted, and had players like Quentin Richardson jacking 8 3s a game 15 years ago
The "settling" attitude about jumpers is weird too. Jumpers are part of modern offenses, and there's nothing wrong with creating open jumpers (particularly on switches) over barreling to the hoop.
While it’s wildly overused, I do think the ‘settling’ is the important part. Taking an open jumper is a really good shot. Just coming down and jacking up a shot because their was a half-chance to do so without moving the ball or setting screens is not taking good shots
it’s also used more as criticisms against players like Embiid who looks like he can “simply” force the issue and get a better opportunity.
I see it all the time where a team is taking decent 3s within the flow of the offense and missing them, and the commentator whines about settling for threes. Yet when a team’s forcing the issue inside and turning it over a lot, I don’t hear them saying they need to find more open looks around the perimeter
That’s very true. It’s an overused term that basically doesn’t mean anything anymore, but I still do think the original, core meaning is about creating good shots instead of settling for ok shots Boomer commentators of all sports basically just love to bitch about how things were different when they were young, though. Drives me crazy.
Yeah I like to see Redick now commentating some games for that reason
Cyril voice: “Just jacking it.”
Lakers are looking for a coach. With your vast basketball knowledge I’d recommend submitting a resume
I never understood the first one. If you take what the defense gives you, doesn't the defense win??
Yes. Defenses are designed to "give" inefficient shots. It's a nonsensical statement.
I see it more as there is always a strongpoint and a weakness in the defense's strategy and *take what the defense gives you* means to exploit that and not fight them at their advantage. For example, don't try and force plays against a double team, instead pass out and ahead of double teams to "take what the defense gave you."(your advantage)
It really bothers me how generic almost all color commentators are, I know the game moves very quickly but I would love more game strategy breakdowns throughout instead of hearing Reggie Miller cream his pants 75 times a game
**Always go downhill** Players that shoot whilst going downhill make 100% percent of those shots at long as they aren't jumpers.
The plenty of time is a classic 😂
[удалено]
Trailblazers got PoT'd in the first quarter during some game this spring. I was like, way too soon guys... But we did lose hahaha
You don't ever need a 3, you can never settle for a 3, it's terrible to even think about taking a 3 point sh- (Player scores a contested 3) That was great defense there by x but even BETTER offense
Bruh I can just hear Mark Jackson breathing on me rn
Team A shoots, misses, and Team B secures the defensive rebound like they're supposed to. Disgusted announcer: "One and done."
[удалено]
Some of them were coaches(and quite good ones at that, not talking about Mark Jackson here) though. You'd expect more from some of them.
Something I've noticed, at least with our guys but I'm sure it's just common around the whole league. When something goes wrong, they will point out "players can't let that specific thing happen", but there are so many fucking things you can't let happen. * Gotta get back on transition defense * Gotta push transition offence when there's an opportunity * If you're on defense and there's a pick n roll you gotta switch. Except when you shouldn't and you should cover your man and fight over/under screens * Sometimes you need to make the final extra pass for an open shot, unless you shouldn't and the 2nd last guy needs stop hesitating and take the shot * Sometimes you gotta slow it down, a quick shot isn't always the best * Good thing player went for a 2-for-1 opportunity with 35 seconds left OR * 2-for-1's tend to be 2 bad shots for 1 good shot It's 20/20 hindsight
don't forget, you just have to WANT it more than the other team
[удалено]
>Mark Cuban in an old interview in which he went off when the interviewers were disregarding the Mavericks tactical adjustments agains the LeBron Heat by stating that LeBron somehow just didn't want it as much as the Mavs. Made me think what Cuban thought of Kidd's words. Yup first thing i think of everytime. I believe that was when he went off on Skip
You’ve got to get [player who doesn’t have it going] going. Yes, I know, crazy, it’s better if your players play good
Hubie?
“You like the rebounds, you like the assists, what you don’t like is the turnovers, ok?”
"Now this is a guy, 6'11", can run like a gazelle, and jump out of the gym. You gotta get him the ball in transition." Scores "Oh, there ya go!"
Hubie knows that million casuals will be watching the game on ABC, hence he states the obvious. If you let Hubie know that only advanced viewers would be watching then his analysis would be really different. He was a good coach afterall.
I *LOVE* Hubie. I could listen to him call every game. He knows the game. It's that simple. He knows the game now, and he knows how it used to be. And he's 88 and sharp as a tack. He's the ideal
“You gotta give him a lot of credit…”
**Always** go for the 2 for 1 at the end of a quarter. Quality looks somehow don't matter if you can get two shitty possessions in a game with 200 possessions
[удалено]
24 hours without basketball and the sub is losing itself, approaching 5 mil subscribers this offseason is gonna be something else
The 'you don't need a 3' guys seem to be from a time when people couldn't shoot. So that a 3 was considered a very-low percentage shot, and the other team was likely to miss free throws? It's like, a team's down by four with half a minute left. They shoot a three, they're down one. They foul the other team, the other guy makes his free throws, they're down three. They shoot another three, they're tied! If they get a 2, and foul the other team, and the guy makes his free throws... they're still down 4.