Okay, I've just got to ask this question of all you NBA experts: One thing I've never understand about the NBA is that wide-open 3-point shot from the baseline that you see so often. Some guy runs down and stands outside the 3-point line along the baseline and the next thing you know they pass him the ball and he's got a completely wide-open shot. Nobody is within 20 feet of him. And then swish . . . Why is this allowed to happen over and over again, especially in a man-on-man defense, which every team plays?? Why isn't there a defensive man covering that 3-point shooter??? I realize that you have to double-team some players around the hoop, but the 3-point shot is a pretty high percentage shot in itself for a lot of players. Plus, it's worth 3-points!!! I just don't get it.
It's called poor defense. No team intentionally leaves that person open, but it often ends up that way. It's also the lowest percentage shot on the court as the backboard is of no use, so if you're going to leave an area loosely guarded, that's the one.
Although I understand that this one of the hardest rotations for a defensive player to make it is also EASILY my biggest basketball pet peeves. Probably because it kills our run or starts/extends the opponents teams run. Now one is understandable but when a opposing guy gets hot and has 2, 3 or 4 of those wide open threes in row, that's usually about the point where Im about to lose my mind. IMO a lot of this situation has to do with a defense that doubles down. Which seems to point out the importance of having defenders that dont require help for double team constantly. On the flip this is exactly the kind of shot we should be able to get on very very regular basis once Oden develops a little more or when teams double down on Roy or Aldridge. Rudy, Webster and others should make even more of a killing off of this shot as our teams grows and develops. Especially as Oden gets more comfortable in the post and IMO that doesnt even require going into him constantly just setting the tone with him and/or Aldridge. So that probably doesnt answer your question but thats my thought FWIW.
Basketball expert might be a stretch, but I do, and have coached now for 20+ years. The wide open 3 pointer can be looked at a couple of different ways. 1. It is the design of the team. In theory the 3pt shot is the lowest % shot, so of all of them it is the best one to give up. 2. Poor perimeter defense. This is what the Blazers do. Wing players constantly have to colapse on penetrating guards leaving 3pt specialist wide open with their feet set in the corner....(the closest spot on the 3 pt line). This is where a lot of scrambling defenses occur. 3. Making sure you don't let a dominant post player hurt you. Double teaming players like Yao and Shaq because no one can really contain them by themselves leaves a lot of shooters open. That is another reason you see scrambling defenses. 4. Lastly, wide open 3pt shots occur because of poor player rotation. Most all defenses now days are designed as help defenses. Whether it's man to man or zone, both utilize help defensive schemes. This is also something that plagues Portland. Certain players like Travis Outlaw, Sergio Rodriguez, Steve Blake and at this point Greg Oden are really poor devensive rotators. Oden has an excuse, but none of the others will ever be good at it at this point. A pick and roll is a good example. If you have games recorded, watch them a bit and you will see what I am talking about. The Blazers get pick and rolled to death because our two PG's that played the majority of the time can't defend it. It also hurts that Oden wasn't quick enough from surgery to defend it either. Using Houston as an example, Brooks comes down and Yao sets a high pick. Oden or Joel come up and the pick is set. Blake and Sergio can't get through the pick, so we switch. That leaves Oden on Brooks and a PG on Yao. In either scenerio some one has to help. If Brooks goes to the basket what should happen is the PG on Yao should help, and the near side wing should switch onto Yao. That leaves Greg to simply take one or two steps out to the wing player spotting up. What Portland does is brings that wing defender to help and then has Oden or Joel rotate to the center. That leaves the PG with about 15 feet to get to the shooter.
This is the one that always kills me. And it's not just our defense, because we get plenty of wide open baseline 3s as well in our offense. But I absolutely HATE the defender from that player helping out on a penetrating guard. I see Blake do this a lot, where he kind of jabs over at a guy penetrating, and his man is left open.(Sorry, shouldn't just pick on Blake, but I have a few in my head that stick out). And I always ask myself, what are you going to do there? When a guy leaves his man in the corner, you aren't helping on defense. You're too slow rotating, and in too poor position to actually get in front of the guy driving. It's always, ALWAYS, a guy who ends up 2 feet away from the ball handler, at a weird angle, and you see the ball get passed by him, to his man for the 3. Don't go to help from the corner. You are in absolutely no position to. Help needs to come from down low, with the OPPOSITE wing coming down to cover that man. Make them make the much harder cross court pass to the corner, instead of the easy dump off. But, you see it time and time again, guys think they're going to, I dunno, get a steal or something, by half assing it towards the guy penetrating? It's almost comical to watch, once you pick up on it, and see how often guys do it, and how purposeless it seems.
I'd imagine that's the case more than anything else. When you double a post-up player, the guy on the weak side in the corner is usually the last player to receive the ball when it swings around the perimeter. It then forces a big guy to most likely go out and rotate to that shooter and they get there late, or with big guys, they don't even want to go outside the paint area.
I think that, even with man to man defenses, player hedge. They need to help cover spots, rather than just players, and it's simply not realistic to cover a guy standing in the very corner of the court every time. A team that was committed to stopping that shot at any cost would expose themselves to having a defensive player planted in both corners, and the other team would have a field day playing 3-on-3 in the middle of the court and at the rim. Ed O.
You really think so? I've seen that wide-open 3 taken so many times that I have to believe it's a calculated risk that the team is willing to take. I think it's a stupid thing to do, but that seems to be the strategy.
In a man-to-man defense, you don't cover "spots"--you cover players. Besides, it doesn't make sense to leave a good 3-point shooter open in the corner to go help defend a guy who "might" make a 2-point shot. That makes no sense at all. Since when does playing 3-on-3 constitute a "field day"? By that logic, playing 5-on-5 is also having a "field day."
Actually in today's basketball you almost always see spots covered. Thus the constant switching NBA teams do. Every offense is designed to create mismatches. It's almost impssible not to switch on most possessions. The pick and roll is different. You can fight through most screens on the pick because that player needs to roll right away so the pick is not as solid as it should be most of the time.
Wrong. Sorry. You cover "your" guy, but you have an overall team responsibility first and foremost, and that means paying attention to when your teammates get beat off the dribble, as an example. *shrug* No. 5-on-5 allows team defense. I can see that you might disagree if you really think that man to man defense doesn't have some further defensive responsibilities, but it does. 3-on-3 makes double-teaming almost impossible. It also makes a very good offensive player all the more unguardable... with post players having their way on the block or one bad guess by a defender resulting in a layup for a dribble-driver. Ed O.
Not at all. In most team sports, like basketball, hockey and soccer, fewer players is an advantage to the offense. Take it further, to see it. If Portland had all four players other than Roy were removed from the court, along with their defenders, it would leave Roy one-on-one with his defender every possession. Do you think that would be better or worse for Portland and Roy, offensively? That's exactly why teams run clear-outs and isolations for their best offensive players. One-on-one, good offensive players are at a huge advantage. If you had ten offensive players and ten defensive players, it would be much easier for the defense to jam everything up. The fewer defenders you have, even if its equal to offensive players, the better it is for the offense.
And all of this is equally true for both teams. Hence, it's a wash. Your offense has a "field day," and my offense has a "field day." That means that no one actually has a field day, since the playing field is leveled.
It's a question of offense versus defense. The defense doesn't allow one or two of their defenders to be completely removed from the play because it allows the opposing offense to have a field day against them. This is an independent decision from what you plan to do on the other end of the court. Rationally, you should not do things that maximize the opponent's offense (like reduce it to a 3-on-3 game when you are playing defense).
"Removed from the play"?? There is no single "play" taking place at any one time--every player is a threat for the entire 24 seconds, including those without the ball. How many times do you see Brandon Roy drive for the basket only to whip the ball to a guy standing in the corner behind the 3-point line? THAT was the play taking place--even though the defense thought the guy with the ball was going to the hoop. I have to go back to my original point. When you see guys in the corner making one 3-point shot after another--with nobody near them--it seems to me that something is wrong with your defensive strategy.
If teams played "pure man-to-man" as you envision, then it would be simple to remove defenders from the play. Just park two (or three, or four) of your players far from the hoop, dragging their defenders with them. That would create a 3-on-3, 2-on-2 or 1-on-1 game, which would be very beneficial to the offense. And the reason that happens is because no team plays pure man-to-man defense. Even teams that are playing man-to-man defense want their defenders to have secondary duties to help on spots of the floor. That's why defenders sag off players on the perimeter or leave them completely. It's a consequence of the stricter hand-check rules. It's no longer possible for one player to defend a good or great slasher. Defending slashers is a team activity and offenses take advantage of that by stationing shooters at the three-point line to exploit collapsing defenses. It's not a defensive strategy choice, it's a response born out of necessity.
