It's been four years since the Sixers beat the Lakers on the road. In that game, Allen Iverson shot 5/28 from the floor (17.9%), with 15 assists. The Sixers took advantage of Chucky Atkins running the point and forced 27 turnovers. Needless to say, both teams have changed quite a bit since then.
I'll have my full preview later today, consider this a preview to the preview, if you will.
The Lakers are probably the best team in the league, when they're at full strength. They may fall to 2nd or 3rd without Bynum, they're that deep. Make no mistake, the Sixers are decided underdogs, walking into a hostile environment and by every reasonable measure, they should lose this game.
My subway reading material for the past week or so has been Dean Oliver's
Basketball On Paper, and it just so happens that the chapter I read this morning was about situations just like the one the Sixers face tonight.
In a nutshell, Oliver talks about how the very good teams strive for consistency, while the lesser teams strive for inconsistency. Now, don't think about this on a play-to-play basis. Think big picture. Consistent play for an excellent team is excellent play. Consistent play for a mediocre team is mediocre play. For a lesser team to have a chance against a significantly greater opponent, they need to utilize risky strategy to level the playing field.
Oliver goes on to describe some risky strategies:
- Full-court pressure
- Shooting a lot of three pointers
- Release guards on shots for easy fast break opportunities
- Have guards crash the offensive glass
- Front the post
- Play an unusually small or large lineup
The idea here is that as the underdog, you need to do something out of the norm to swing the odds in your favor. Each of the strategies above has the potential to backfire, but playing straight up against a superior team is going to result in a loss most of the time. Successfully using these risky strategies can swing the odds back to .500, or even.
Now, let's look at each strategy and see if the Sixers can/could/should use them in tonight's mismatch with the Lakers.
- Full-court pressure: The press is something I'd expect them to use, to some degree, throughout the game. Actually, I'm going to go out on a limb and say this is probably a game which Reggie Evans could have a profound effect on. Los Angeles is excellent in the half court, they have a stable offensive system which is based on timing and choreography. Throwing Evans out there would certainly disrupt their offense for short stretches of time, at least.
- Three pointers: I don't think the Sixers are the type of team who can rely on heaving threes to make up for any disadvantage they may suffer. In fact, the three pointer is their main disadvantage. That being said, I'd like to see Donyell out there to at least keep the three-point diferential manageable.
- Release the guards: The Sixers don't really need to release their guards for fast break opportunities, they get them anyway. What they need are crisp outlet passes and a desire to push the ball when the opportunity is there.
- Guards crash o-glass: Again, the Sixers are among the best teams in the league on the offensive glass. Check below, however, for a reason why this might be a very good idea against the Lakers.
- Front the post: Not really necessary with Sammy on Pau. If Bynum was playing, this may be a viable option.
- Small or large lineup: The Sixers already start a small lineup, so maybe going in the opposite direction with Speights inserted for Willie Green would help shake things up. I'd certainly try it.
I saved one key risky strategy for the end because, well, it takes some logic to grasp. Oliver states, and I agree, that it's to the advantage of the lesser team to slow the pace of the game as much as they can. The logic is thus: Both teams always have the same number of possessions, the better team does more with each possession, so the more possessions in the game, the further the better team should be able to distance itself from the lesser team.
Look at it this way, the Lakers average 113.8 points/100 possessions, the Sixers average 106.3 (stats from
Knickerblogger.net). For argument's sake, let's say they played at a 100 possessions/game pace tonight. That would be a 7.5 point advantage for the Lakers. Now, let's assume the Sixers can slow the pace down to say, 70 possessions. The advantage shrinks to 5.17 points. The fewer possessions, the smaller the advantage in points. (This is a bit more complicated, because we didn't take the defensive rating into account, but each team has a 105.6/100 possessions defensive rating, so they effectively cancel each other out for our purposes).
Now, the slow-it-down strategy isn't going to work if you're behind by 10 points, but it will work if you can get a lead early, or at least keep the game close. Let me be clear, I'm not talking about walking the ball up the court and putting up a shot with 0 left on the shot clock every time down the floor as a means to slow the pace. What I'm talking about is utilizing some of the strategies listed above as a means to an end.
For example, even when the press (or trap in the halfcourt) doesn't cause a turnover, it does make the team work harder to get a shot. Instead of crossing half court and going right into their offense with between 16-20 seconds left on the shot clock, it forces teams to work harder to get into their offense, and they may have only 10-15 seconds left on the clock when they finally get into their sets.
On offense, this doesn't mean you stop running the break when you have an advantage. What it means is that when you don't have a clear advantage (3 on 2, 2 on 1), you pull the ball out and run some clock. It could also mean sending your guards to the offensive glass. Every offensive rebound extends the possession for your team, and cuts down on the total number of possessions in the game (A possession is different from a play. Possessions only end wen the other team takes control of the ball. Plays end with shots, turnovers, etc.).
One thing about this particular chapter heartened me, because it backed up my philosophy on Reggie Evans. Look at it this way, when you have an advantage over your opponent, using risky strategies is not only needless, but it's dangerous. You want to play to your average, and allow your superior ability to overcome the lesser opponent. Playing Reggie Evans is a risky strategy. You're sacrificing sound schemes for the chance that he'll mess up the flow of the game and bring greater than average returns. Against lesser teams you're gambling with an advantage, best-case scenario, you get more of an advantage. Worst-case, you nullify the inherent advantage you already have over the lesser team. Make sense?
Makes good sense, you explain things very well, Brian. 'Cept I can't agree with the Reggie trick. Sure, try something unorthodox in an effort to discombobulate the other team but I think you wanna try something you have a chance of getting away with (excuse the grammar).
You want to try something different but still with players who have a good chance of executing the strategy w/o giving up too much. And you have to use the best tool in your box for the job at hand. For instance, you're going to use Donyell for the flood-em-with-threes strategy and not Reggie.
Reggie's clearly an above average defender (may still depend on matchup), but his negatives on the offensive end...? If you have a guy on your bench who's not a million miles from Reggie defensively but is light years ahead in offense...? Having Reggie out there will slow things down alright, but slow down the offense too much to make up for his skills on dee. They'll just cheat off him and make things next to impossible for Thad and Iggy. Sez here.
I say pick an pop em to death with Speights. They wouldn't be expecting that, would they?
I don't think trading baskets w/ the Lakers is going to get the job done. It's rare, but sometimes Evans can change a game, this is one of the cases where it could happen.
Well I'm not sure I'm fully getting it. Your man Oliver mentions six strategies. Two are clearly defensive strategies, three are offensive strategies and one (big/small lineup) can go either way, depending on personnel. Thing is, these are all team strategies.
Playing Evans more is not an overall team strategy.
And, again, all he can do is slow down a lil more effectively than the other PFs on the team the opposing PF. I mean, it's better than a kick in the head, but that's no strategy and he's not doing it leagues better than anyone else than we can forgive/excuse his offensive ineptness. Sez here.
Let's say, for argument's sake, Evans, over 36 minutes, can foil three more opposing FG attempst than Speights would in the same time (hm). Over the course of that 36 minutes, would that 3-foil advantage help make up for the differential Speights would create on the offensive end?
Let's face it, Sixers dee begins and ends with Sammy having a great night. If he's off, it won't make that much difference if Evans is on Odom or Powell. It also won't matter too much if guys can't/won't close out on the Lakers' distance bombers.
Trading baskets -- iow, going all out defense -- might in fact be the best way for this team to have a shot against KobeCo. Might as well have your most efficient scorers out there as long as possible.
I'm just talkin out my ass here, I don't have the answers either. Just sayin.
The point isn't Reggie's D on Odom, in fact, Reggie will rarely play D on Odom. When Reggie's in the game, in this situation, he's almost always used to trap the ball as soon as it comes over half court, and/or, to trap the screen and roll. It creates turnovers, it creates havoc. Most importantly, it doesn't allow the opposing team to run their offense, which is wildly efficient. It's like gumming up the works, when it works.
I think it works better against the really good teams because they're accustomed to running their offense against stagnant defenses, and running it very effectively.
Now, does Speights provide more offense? Absolutely. I'm not denying that. But would having speights on the floor disrupt their offense? I don't think so. And that's the rub.
I'm not saying you put evans out there for 35 minutes. I'm saying you use him for spurts to disrupt what the Lakers are so successful at. It's worked against great teams before, and I think it's something they should try. I'm not saying you cut Speights' minutes, what I'm saying is that you have to do something against the grain, something with a less than favorable risk/reward quotient if you're going to make up for the talent discrepancy. Running the pick and roll w/ speights isn't exactly out of the box.
sorry for the error there.
anyway, i remain thoroughly unconvinced while accepting you've made a great argument. Whatever you'd have Evans doing out there, let Speights try the same thing. He may (may) not be quite as good at it but ... (you know the rest)
oh and sorry i didn't mean to imply you would have evans out there for 36 mins, just to say if there wouldn't be that much diff over 36 mins, there'd be even less diff (defensively) with fewer mins (say 10-15).
The problem, as I see it, with the slow it down strategy is that the sixers 'strength' is truly restricted by this problem and it would require good execution in the half court set consistently to work.
And since 'posting up' seems a foreign concept to the sixers, I'm not sure.
I'm also not sure Tony DiLeo has read basketball on paper - sadly - so they'll just try and do what they always do probably.
Not necessarily. Not if you're slowing it down by forcing them to use more of the shot clock and you aren't stopping your running game, when you have the advantage.
Almost agree with the half court trap idea. If it can take some time off the shot clock and break up the Lakers flow it is worth the risk... but with great passers at all 5 positions you are taking too much of a risk of giving up easy baskets. Guys like Odom and gasol are just too good of passers to be successful with the trap.
As for Evans- I actually agree with you on this one (even though I usually rail against using Evans.) Evans (and Speights) never back down against even big name opponents. Evans can mess up the flow (for both teams) and really change the momentum of a game. This is often not a good thing, but against a superior team it can give you a chance that you don't have if the other team is in its comfort zone.
Make this game ugly. At least show some scappiness and hope to steal a win. Evans will without a doubt mix things up.
Also, I expect Iguodala will play this game full bore, and even be more aggressive than normal. If he somehow can draw some fouls on Gasol it could help even things.
Evans sure turned the tide with his havoc when we played Boston the last time in the infamous Ray Allen dagger three game. He came in in the 2nd quarter and turned the whole game upside down and if I remember correctly, Allen even gave him a shout-out in his before halftime interview.
Ah the reggie evans myth
It's like David Eckstein being 'good'
It'll never go away
I should bookmark the 82 games page just so i can reference it every time there's an argument for reggie and his 'positive' impact
Overall, he's a negative. I'm not arguing that. All I'm saying is that in certain circumstances, he can swing a game. This is one of those circumstances, so use him in the one role he can be successful at. And Bryon is right, Reggie had a huge impact on that Boston game.
And I'm just saying the small sample size of his positive impact doesn't impress me enough to take away from the more important thing which is the development of Speights
Brian, I have been telling my readers to pick that book up since I started blogging. Glad you are getting into it. Great stuff.