NBA and NCAA fastbreaks

[poindexter]

Its the only area of the game I see that has regressed in the last few decades. Players today are bigger, faster, more skilled than ever before. All around just plain better.

But it pains me to watch fast break opportunities in the NBA or NCAA D-1. In general, players don't fill up the lanes as well, and the player with the ball invariably takes it to the hole, come hell or high water.

Maybe I am just old, but it used to be figuratively a slam dunk if it was 2-1 or 3-2. Now I see so many fastbreaks that get bogged down by the person with the ball taking it to the hole, and missing the layup.

 

[PeteyPirate]

Fill your lane!

 

[Norman Stansfield]

I'm waiting for the connection to teacher-student sex.

Did I miss it?

 

[CentralIllinoisan]

Fastbreak is a euphemism for dirty, dirty teacher-student sex.

 

[Armchair_QB]

Quality work gentlemen.

 

[poindexter]

Jeez, you make six or seven hundred posts on a subject and you get pigeonholed around here..

 

[Starman]

Fastbreaks have all but disappeared from basketball due to several reasons:

1) the increasingly perimeter-oriented structure of most offenses, usually with three players out around the arc and thus in position to get back on defense to stop fast breaks;

2) increasing emphasis by coaches on defensive break prevention vs. offensive rebounding. It used to be common to send three players to the boards, with two back -- some teams would go "four to the boards." Now it is almost unheard of to send three players "unconditionally" to the boards (wing players are usually told to take off for the defensive end as soon as it is apparent the rebound will go to the other side).

3) much greater emphasis is being put on contesting/denying outlet passes.

4) control freak coaches, who abhor players using dipsy-doo, shake-and-bake, slamma-jamma moves on fast breaks (that is, players actually playing basketball : ). They'd rather see the point guard walk the ball down, spread the floor, call a play, milk the clock, run a pick-and-roll, drive-and-kick for a 3-pointer at the shot clock buzzer, because then everyone says, "hoo boy, that team runs a great halfcourt offense, they must be well-coached." Eighty percent of coaches will **** a brick if anybody takes a shot with more than five seconds left on the shot clock. Players are ordered never to push fast break situations unless they have a complete mismatch -- 3- or 4-on-1. They are told never to push fast breaks if numbers are even. There is no such thing as a "secondary break" any more. Given the greater emphasis on sending players back on defense, as a result fast breaks have all but completely disappeared from the sport.

The game has completely gone to ****; it's devolved into a sumo-wrestling exercise in sludgeball and a battle of egos between clipboard-waving guys in Armani suits.

 

[93Devil]

Starman pretty much summed it up.

I do hate watching players think that going to the free throw line is a positive result of a two-on-one, but coaches not sending anyone in to rebound on offense probably is the biggest downfall.

 

[CollegeJournalist]

Starman knocked that out of the park, but the one thing I hate more than anything else about the NBA is that a guy can just grab the guy with the ball while he's on a break, and it's not an intentional foul. The clear path rule is a good addition, but putting a guy in a bear hug is an intentional foul. Why that's legal, I'll never know.

 

[Webster]

I must be watching a different NBA than everyone else.

The two biggest changes are the defensive commitment of teams to try and get back -- in part made easier because of perimeter oriented offences and partly because of better coaching.

Second is the fact that wing players are more likely to spot up in a 3 on 2 or 4 on 3 situation.

 

[Starman]

I must be watching a different NBA than everyone else.

The two biggest changes are the defensive commitment of teams to try and get back -- in part made easier because of perimeter oriented offences and partly because of better coaching.

Second is the fact that wing players are more likely to spot up in a 3 on 2 or 4 on 3 situation.

uh, that's kinda like exactly what I said, except I wouldn't necessarily go along with the coaching necessarily being "better."

 

[Webster]

Coaching which prevents the other team from scoring easy points is usually "better". I know you hate the Riley-era Knicks and their ilk, but they ushered in the type of effort which took every game and possession seriously.

 

[Starman]

Coaching which prevents the other team from scoring easy points is usually "better". I know you hate the Riley-era Knicks and their ilk, but they ushered in the type of effort which took every game and possession seriously.

Ahhhh yess, the Norman Dale/Hank Iba/Woody Hayes mindset: Defense is good good good. Offense is bad bad bad. Attempting to score is morally deficient. Only playing iron-clad defense is an ethically acceptable way to play the game.

 

[Herbert Anchovy]

Sending in the clown (Ollie) for two Barry-type free throws is good drama.

 

[KYSportsWriter]

Jeez, you make six or seven thousand posts on a subject and you get pigeonholed around here..

 

[Football_Bat]

Coaching which prevents the other team from scoring easy points is usually "better". I know you hate the Riley-era Knicks and their ilk, but they ushered in the type of effort which took every game and possession seriously.

Ahhhh yess, the Norman Dale/Hank Iba/Woody Hayes mindset: Defense is good good good. Offense is bad bad bad. Attempting to score is morally deficient. Only playing iron-clad defense is an ethically acceptable way to play the game.

Call me a fossil, but I'll change my mind about this when and only when Don Nelson wins a championship.

 

[Pete Incaviglia]

Coaching which prevents the other team from scoring easy points is usually "better". I know you hate the Riley-era Knicks and their ilk, but they ushered in the type of effort which took every game and possession seriously.

And they didn't win.

 

[Stoney]

Coaching which prevents the other team from scoring easy points is usually "better". I know you hate the Riley-era Knicks and their ilk, but they ushered in the type of effort which took every game and possession seriously.

Ahhhh yess, the Norman Dale/Hank Iba/Woody Hayes mindset: Defense is good good good. Offense is bad bad bad. Attempting to score is morally deficient. Only playing iron-clad defense is an ethically acceptable way to play the game.

Call me a fossil, but I'll change my mind about this when and only when Don Nelson wins a championship.

Exactly. I completely understand Starman's thinking when it comes the question of what's more fun to watch. But I've watched a helluva lot of basketball in my time, and I can't help but notice that the Doug Moe, Paul Westhead, Mike D'Antoni, Don Nelson run n fun styles have a nasty knack for flaming out in the post-season. "Playing the right way" might be more boring to watch, but it does seem to be the best way to bring home a ring.

 

[Stoney]

Coaching which prevents the other team from scoring easy points is usually "better". I know you hate the Riley-era Knicks and their ilk, but they ushered in the type of effort which took every game and possession seriously.

And they didn't win.

The hell they didn't. The Riley Knicks era was the best four year stretch the Knicks have had in the last 35 years. They might not've won a championship (although they were only a very close game 7 Finals loss from it), but they did a helluva lot better than that talent would've if Riley had not gone with that half-court brutal ball approach.

 

[Guy_Incognito]

Coaching which prevents the other team from scoring easy points is usually "better". I know you hate the Riley-era Knicks and their ilk, but they ushered in the type of effort which took every game and possession seriously.

And they didn't win.

The hell they didn't. The Riley Knicks era was the best four year stretch the Knicks have had in the last 35 years. They might not've won a championship (although they were only a very close game 7 Finals loss from it), but they did a helluva lot better than that talent would've if Riley had not gone with that half-court brutal ball approach.

The lesson of those Knicks, and the various Pistons teams is simple. While in basketball more than any other sport, the way to win titles is to have the best player in the world and surround him with the appropriate minor pieces, if you don't have the dynamic superstar, the next best way to try is the Riley way. And when Jordan was out, and it was up for grabs because there was no great team they came within a couple of Starks jumpers of stealing a title.