My problem with "versatility"

[Guest Walter]

Versatility is too often mistaken for positional interchangability.

We have players who are "versatile". They CAN play several positions. That doesn't mean they SHOULD. They can play "out of position". That doesn't mean they should.

In fact, having players play a variety of positions or having them log the majority of their minutes at a position they are not best suited for (where they have the best potential to dominate their respective opposition) can have detrimental effects, especially on young, developing players.

Examples on our roster abound.

1) Josh Childress. He could be either a Sg or Sf. Right now he is a better Sf. However, his "best potential to dominate his respective opposition" is at Sg. He only lacks the pure shooting skills. We seem to be making the correct move by playing him at Sg almost entirely.

2) Josh Smith. The guy played some Sg last year and could play some Pf in a pinch, but his "best potential to dominate his respective opposition" is at Sf. He's a slasher who shouldn't be asked to "spot up" or "back down" for a living.

3) Marvin Williams. The guy doesn't have a definate position IMHO. Despite limited ball-handling skills, his skill set and build seem best suited for NBA Sf right now.

4) JJ. Can play 3 positions. Between Sg and Sf, Sg is the position where he more dominates his competition. His roll as primarily Pg is too be assessed. I believe he's a better Sg than Pg.

5) Al Harrington. A decent starter at both Sf and Pf. He all but has to play Pf for us. I see him as having the most positional interchangability of any of our players if only because he's a developed player. Jerking him from position to position won't affect his performance as greatly or cost him development.

Our lineup is a logjam. Our propensity to draft 6'8" swingmen/forwards means we have to play people "out of position" or in a position that is not the best position for them to dominate their opposition. A certain amount of this is acceptable but not without doing so indiscriminately or without acknowledging the consequences whenever we do so.

W

[Lascar78]

And what BK would say to that is what does it mean to play SF, versus playing PF for instance? Let's say Smoove is put at PF, meaning he guards the opposition's PF. Does that he has to live in the paint, posting up and backing his man down? No. He can still play how he plays, moving inside and out, slashing, trying to take his man off the dribble when he gets it outside, trying to dunk it when he gets it down low. Hell if Tim Duncan's guarding him, I would expect him to play on the outside to draw duncan out of the paint (less blocks for TD), and Smith has the speed to get around him. They are only out of position if you are expecting them to assume traditional roles on offense. BK doesn't believe in all that. I see your point but there is a flipside.

Just like I don't think JJ can be a pure point guard, but I don't think that's what we expect from him. We might expect him to guard the PGs, we might expect him to bring the ball up, but we don't necessarily expect him to play a pure PG role within the halfcourt. We expect that our versatile lineup as a whole can create plays, not just the guy guarding the opposition's PG.

The BK philosophy doesn't add up in your mind because you're only applying half of it.

[Inside_Man]

THe jury is very much out on whether BKs unorthodox philosophy of accumulating players who are overly atheltic and overly long and then playing them out of position will be a winning philosophy. We just don't know.

But we do know he doesn't like short PGs. I don't think he ever would have drafted Paul. He probably still wished he got Livingston last year. And he took Ivey in the 2nd round because of his height in part.

I think BK believes that the value of length in a player changed when the zone defense became legal. That change makes long athletic players worth more than they ever were in the man to man world. A team of long, athletic players, who play defense together can shut down passing lanes and close off routes to the hole.

BK's theory might be radical - and it might be wrong. But he's saying the change to zone defenses makes for a radical change in the type of players a team needs to field a good defense.

I just think it's exciting to see someone have an idea and then be able to put it to work and see what happens. He might change the way all teams look at defensive skills if he's right.

Right or wrong, I applaud BK for having a vision and an idea. How refreshing it is after the directionless Babc0ck years.

[fashoe1]

i agree with much of what you said. check it out in fashoe1's hawks tawk

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

And what BK would say to that is what does it mean to play SF, versus playing PF for instance?

---

In the playoffs, when the games slow down and isolation and two man plays are run more frequently, it pays more to have players who legitimately fulfill the requirements of their positions, who are certain of their role, and who don't create mismatch advantages FOR the other team.

...

Josh Smith will not "draw Duncan out". If JS a perimeter threat they'll zone him if his tendency is to drive (doesn't have the handles now) or switch another player on him. It's definate they would switch a player other than Duncan on him now if only because Josh is not a back to the basket threat. He is a SLASHER. It takes MANY years to learn back to the basket moves. That's one reason why big men take longer to develop. The nuances of interior offense aren't that easy or come that naturally. He's a slasher. Don't think you can make him a sharp shooter or back to the basket banger. Don't think the undersized Pf creates mismatch advantages for you more than against you. It that were the case, the top 10 Pfs in the league wouldn't all be bigger and/or taller.

...

About JJ, the flip side to his creating mismatches is he MAY be exposed against quicker Pgs and we will get very few easy buckets from fast break opportunities because JJ isn't going to run the break much or all that well.

W

[pathway23]

Walter you're about as bad as Diesel...I don't know how you guys draw these conclusions before the season even plays itself out. Didn't you get yourself in trouble being all over J Chill last year? I hope the same thing occurs this way again with M Will this year and also your doubts about JJ as a PG.. I am very skeptical about your criticisms of versatility, because I think it can create mismatches in our favor most of the time. You didn't notice it last year because we lacked talent. Now that we have more talent on our roster we will have more mismatches in our favor. I don't think most teams in the NBA will stay with your vision of a prototype team much longer, and I think the zone defense is what is making the long athletic swingman type the prototype player rather than the big bruisers.

[Nicholasp27]

our fast break will be fine

u did see chill/smoove running it together last season?

and jj did a good job on parker, so he's up to the task of handling quick pgs

plus, salim may be our ace in the hole if he can guard the paul/feltons of the nba

[Guest Walter]

...that not one of the top 10 Pfs per TENDEX rating are both as short and weigh as little as Josh Smith, yet some here insist he is and will be a better Pf than Sf? Is it impossible that he will be? No. But rarely do you prefer to be undersized/height for your position and if skill-wise given the choice you prefer being oversized.

...

Don't buy into the hype that zone will so change the make-up of teams that all you need are the same type player across the board. College has had zone for years. While it is a guard focused group because guards develop MUCH earlier than big men, the Temple's of the world, recruiting almost exclusively long, athletic players of the same ilk, while problematic when played once in a blue moon by a team, do not win anything of importance.

You still have to play in the post-season and the carny gimmick of 6'8" clones may simply not cut it. The risk is we have players that do alot of the same things for us. This is inefficient. We also lack players that we need to do certain things for us. NO true center, no true Pg, no true Pf.

Yes, there are some good things, but honestly, does the NBA modified zone defense suggest one scrap the concept of diversified roles in the form of positions? An unfettered zone defense hasn't in college and a fettered one won't in the pros.

In short, "versatile" players with considerable skill redundancy make for a rigid team. Ultimately, it is a versatile TEAM that we should want, one with a variety of valuable talents within its five starting/best players, and IMHO we passed that mile marker a long time ago. Instead we have 5 versatile "swing-forwards" who cannot help but make for a less flexible team.

Is it all bad? No. But I don't think being the Temple of the NBA is all that great.

...

& yes, I was wrong about J Chill. I admitted that long ago. So were many others here and elsewhere and not just about Chill. Yet both remain on either side of THIS discussion.

W

[Diesel]

IF there is one flaw in BK's thinking it's that positions don't matter. I honestly think that BK sees this game as being a game that can be dominated by 4 6'7-6'9 players and 1 7'0er.

The team that BK liked and "modelled" is that of the Pacers.

That Pacer team had:

Rik Smits/Dale Davis/Derrick Mckey/Reggie Miller/Mark Jackson. With Antonio Davis, Heywood Workman, Scott Haskins, Jalen Rose (or Ricky Pierce), Fred Hoiberg, Dwayne Schinzsus..

I think what BK missed is the need for Reggie to play SG and the need for Jackson to be the PG. There was more players playing their positions than there were versatile players on that squad. I mean Jalen could play BU PG. Dale could play some C. Antonio could play some C. MCkey could play either forward Spot... But Mark Jackson and Reggie Miller were definitely what they were. I believe that is what made the team a winning team.

[Traceman]

that he doesn't like short PGs. If that were the case, he certainly wouldn't be trying to resign Lue.

[KB21]

During the Joe Johnson press conference, someone asked BK what he sees in Joe that makes him believe that Joe can be a point guard.

Billy's reply was that the standard ideal in the NBA is that you have to have a point guard, a shooting guard, a small forward, a power forward, and a center on the floor. BK says that he doesn't believe that is the case, and he asked the question what's wrong with having a versatile basketball player on the floor as opposed to having a "small forward" or a "power forward".

BK stated that he wants players that can play more than one position, and in Joe's case, he's a guy that can play more than two positions. Billy stated that Joe can play up to three or four positions and that versatility will really help the Hawks.

Mike Woodson also stated his belief that the length and athleticism will help the team defensively, saying that having the length allows them to put guys who can block shots on the floor. This helps when guys get beat on the perimeter. Mike stated that the Hawks still want to improve down low and get guys that compliment the players they have on the perimeter well.

[Gray Mule]

Yep! He's still looking for one or two BIG players

to cover the defense inside.

[TheDude]

One thing i think that will be a plus will be having JJ at the point with salim at SG..salim can guard the opposing point and JJ the opposing PG.. and salim's ability to hit the three will open JJ up more too.

[Guest Walter]

I don't know if BK is right or wrong to essentially not consider position whatever the rationale (i.e. zone defense). I do question whether "versatile" players with skill redundancy make for a versatile team. I find a versatile team more attractive. I am hopeful that the few small(?) deals we make extend "versatility" to the team. That's one reason I like the Stoudamire drafting and the ZaZa signing. Neither fit the BK standard but both bring something we really needed (deadly perimeter shooting and size with skill, potential, and toughness respectively).

Regardless, I am really excited to see this team in action. I like playing skeptic but I would like more to see BK get a chance to finish what he's started here (something he hasn't gotten elsewhere, as we watch West dismantle much of the good BK did in Memphis). We should be able to tell fairly soon how the "5 good players" experiment works.

W

[KB21]

I think they do fit into his versatile player philosophy. Salim is a guy that is being looked at as a combo guard, a guy that can play both the point guard and the shooting guard position. Billy also specifically mentioned Zaza's ability to play both of the post positions effectively as being one of the reasons they decided to pursue him.

[mrhonline]

For me, I'm more worried about defensive versatility.

Guys who can guard opposing:

PG's: Lue/JJ/Salim/Delk/Ivey

SG's: JJ/Delk/Ivey/Childress/Smith/Smith

SF's: JJ/Childress/Smith/Smith/Williams/Harrington

PF's: Smith/Williams/Harrington/Pachulia/Collier

CE's: Pachulia/Collier

Clearly, the Hawks need more players that can guard opponents' centers. Otherwise, they have an incredible flexible lineup.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

I think they do fit into his versatile player philosophy. Salim is a guy that is being looked at as a combo guard, a guy that can play both the point guard and the shooting guard position. Billy also specifically mentioned Zaza's ability to play both of the post positions effectively as being one of the reasons they decided to pursue him.

---

They are versatile players without redundant skill sets for the team.

W

[Sage11]

inability, and that my friend is where your argument breaks down. I would much rather have a player that can hold down several positions than one who can only hold down one. Magic was a perfect example of a "versatile" player. He could hold down any position on the court if he chose to. BK is wise to fill this roster with players with the potential to play more than one position. Such a philosophy does not neglect the need to fill the position, but it covers each position AND creates mismatches for the opposing team on defense. BK is NOT producing a new paradigm, he is just expanding what we have seen glimpses of in the past.

[KB21]

......another term for "tweener".

The players Billy has acquired over the last two years are players that can legitimately play more than one position, not players that are caught in between two positions.

[Sage11]

Quote:

---

another term for "tweener

---

Exacltly.