Mailbag, Part 2

Basketball and other stuff

By Caitlin Cooper I @C2_Cooper 

Hoop Drew Lawyer Realities: What are coaching decisions (substitutions, timeouts, coverages, or anything at all) that you see that are not uniform but are likely easily proven to be small pickups in points per possession long term? Second, what did you think of RC’s (and Indy’s) end of reg against BOS?

It's going to sound gimmicky, but … two seasons ago, when the Pacers would automatically default to playing 2-3 zone on baseline out of bounds plays, I often wondered why opponents wouldn't intentionally try to knock the ball out if they were struggling to score. According to Synergy, the Pacers surrendered 1.06 PPP when zoning up against baseline plays. Not to belabor a point, but those coverages were extremely predictable and under-baked. Take advantage of what you know.

Another area that is still underused but has started to make a comeback is passing out of the post, particularly with guards and bully drives. The post is often thought of as an outdated mode of offense because of the time and risk that is involved with entry passes. But, what if the entry pass isn't necessary? Then, the defense is forced to go from being in help-side on a drive to defending with the ball behind them on the block. None of which is to mention the exhaustion factor of defending against physicality. While not a bully drive, this is tremendous from Memphis.

Given Haliburton's size for position, this might be another way to weaponize his passing that doesn't require screen help or potentially involving an extra defender. Just as an example, a post-up from Sabonis during his first All-Star season was worth 0.908 points per possession, compared to 1.317 from passes out of the post, whether cutting or spotting up. Make the post a vehicle for assists!

As for the end of regulation against Boston, I wrote about the process being better when isolations are paired with off-ball screening actions in the first Hatbox. But, it's tough when the opponent doesn't have any weak links. Smart wasn't biting on their usual tactic of ghosting the switch, and they tried multiple times to screen for Brogdon without success (push switching or push non-switching is the future!).

Here's an option: Ghost-RAM-Touch. And yes, I realize this is against Houston. Still, imagine if Nembhard is in for Mathurin. The RAM screen (i.e. the down screen that screens Nembhard into the ball screen) would've forced Brogdon to fight through an extra obstacle. Plus, Nembhard is generally a more physical screener. In that event, maybe, they get the switch they want. Or, Nembhard slips into space.

Whatever the case, I probably would've preferred to go down with some type of post action (even if for Turner against Tatum) or a set designed to attack or force switches, rather than isolating against Smart.

Tara Bowen-Biggs: Caitlin your knowledge of basketball is so vast!! For those of us who are still trying to learn to watch the game critically, what are some fundamentals you would suggest concentrating on to help the game "slow down" and make plays more recognizable for those of us who came later to the game?

This is a great question and one that I get asked often. First of all, I just want to say that the more I've come to "know" about basketball, the more I realize how much I don't know. And that's probably a good thing, because it means that I keep trying to learn from others who are smarter than me. My best advice is to pay attention and be curious, which includes seeking out credible resources that will help you grow in your understanding.

My friend @Bowser2Bowser publishes the Basketball Action Dictionary on Medium, which is a tremendous tool for absorbing terminology and jargon with visual diagrams and examples. Highly recommend. He is also a very clear and concise writer, with subtle hints of delightful literary flair. Follow him on Twitter for other thoughtful basketball musings and educational threads.

Here is a list of some more of my favorites:

@samfolkk, @evin_gual, @MoDakhil_NBA, @stevejones20, @TheBoxAndOne_, @HalfCourtHoops, @Will_Gottlieb, @MikePradaNBA, @StephNoh, @abovethebreak3, @Adam_Mares, @JoeVirayNBA, @joey_doubleyou, @MattBrooksNBA, @bballbreakdown, @BBallImmersion, @Rockets_Insider, @bgeis_bird, @jackfrank_jjf, @NekiasNBA

They all know what they are talking about and will enlarge your knowledge in different ways. For what it's worth, my process is generally to watch the game live and then re-watch, with the ability to rewind. Try to avoid focusing on the ball, as that will help you pick up on patterns in off-ball movement. Once you recognize a play, then you can recognize what happens when the play doesn't work or when a player adjusts to different types of coverage or makes a read to go off script.

Lastly, as women, we don't always get invited into the types of clubhouses where these sorts of topics are freely discussed without judgment. If you, or any other women who might be reading this, ever have specific questions you want to ask, but you don't know who to ask or you feel intimidated to ask, I've been there. I may not always know the answers, but the seclusion of my inbox will always be available to you. (p.s. everyone else is of course welcome to ask, too).

Nikhil: What do positions actually mean in the modern NBA? What does it mean for a guard like Nesmith to be playing the 4? How would someone like Buddy Hield's responsibilities differ if he was playing the 2 vs. the 3?

This is a very complex topic. In broad strokes, one way to look at the modern NBA is that roles are more so matched to skill rather than matching position with size. For example, if Terry Taylor is best optimized as a 6-foot-5 roll-man, then he is used as a 6-foot-5 roll-man -- not a "shooting guard." Or, at least he was last season, but I digress. Take a look at this pet play that the Pacers run multiple times every game. Signaled for with the letter "C" likely as a reference to "corner," the play begins with a guard coming up out of the corner to set a touch screen, which then triggers multiple options and scoring opportunities. In this case, when Andrew Nembhard slips toward the rim, rather than reversing the ball to run a hand-off for the guard in the opposite corner, Myles Turner hits him with a hi-low pass.

Just to emphasize, that is a 6-foot-11 center diming a 6-foot-3 guard. Other than Turner running the pipe from arc-to-arc, there isn't much material difference on who does what here. Sometimes, Haliburton will play in the corner on the second side, with Hield setting a turn screen for him to fly into the hand-off. When that happens, either McConnell or Nembhard will act as the ball-handler. In essence, what matters is the spacing and what reads are made, not who is playing the two, three, or four.

With that being said, there are times where, when the team is playing four-guard lineups, that certain players will be deployed in certain roles to exploit an advantage.

Here, for instance, based on a sideline exchange that I broke down at my former website, Mathurin is deliberately used as the first screener at the elbow in this Iverson set, which is typically the job of the four-man. That's because Carlisle was anticipating that the Bulls would commit two to the ball, resulting in a hard closeout that Mathurin could attack after slipping the empty ball-screen.

Again, that isn't about the position, it's about his skill for racing to the rim. Of course, it would be hypocritical to say that positions don't matter, while also pointing out why Jalen Smith isn't a four, Myles Turner needs to play the five, or the difference that was made when Aaron Nesmith was inserted into the starting lineup. In each of those cases, the relevance of the position has a lot to do with who each player is being guarded by. Nesmith, who tends to have some east-west in his drives and a shaky left hand, now gets to attack closeouts against bigger forwards. Turner, meanwhile, is either shooting against centers in drop, facing up and driving against centers from the perimeter, or demonstrating improved patience against switches in the post. That's a change from when he was guarded by fours next to Sabonis, as well as earlier in the season, when teams were cross-matching him alongside Smith, who doesn't do many power forward-like things.

In summation, positions don't matter -- except when they do.

Erik Dockter: Does Jeff Teague know about sad Jeff Teague?

I don't know, but it is my greatest hope that he does and would be willing to go into partnership with me on merch. That is my biggest failure in creating this blog. Well, hopefully, that is my biggest failure in creating this blog. I guess I'll let you be the judge of that (*whispers* "please like me"). Overall, there haven't been many sad Jeff Teague moments this season, but he comes for us all eventually. Those shirts would help get us through the long winter of whatever sad thing happens to the Pacers (it's inevitable!), especially since they would also be available in long sleeve tees and hoodies. See, I already know how to market it! Jeff Teague, if you're reading this, please embrace being a cultural icon for the tens of people who want an image of your face, staring into the abyss, plastered on their chest for all to see. I'm ready when you are.

Josh: What is the best Gilmore Girls related media?

In my completely unbiased opinion, I'd have to go with this really raw and affecting letter that was posted on Twitter last week. Not sure where else you would find a connection between Lorelai saving notes for Rory to an NBA blogger saving notes for readers. The intersection of that Venn diagram is extremely niche, but the writer (from what I've heard) is very grateful for the ardency of those who are willing to stand beside her in love for both basketball nerdery and snappy banter.

Brynn Stewart: In your opinion, who should Rory have ended up with?

Oh Brynn, what have you done? This could be an entire dissertation. And really, a litmus test for friendship (kidding! I think?). On that note, I would like to preface my answer by saying that I am first and foremost Team Rory. For that reason, I must also be Team Jess. In convincing her to go back to Yale ("Why did you quit Yale?!?"), Jess did for Rory what not even Lorelai could. Then, in the revival, when she was The Worst (well, to be honest, there are a lot of moments throughout the series when she is The Worst), he once again got her back on her feet, planting the seed for her to pivot from journalism to writing a book about her relationship with her mom.

When did Dean do that? They had nothing in common. He was the safety net she needed when she transferred to Chilton and later was adjusting to her first year of college. Likewise, when did Logan do that? He got her to break out of her shell ("You Jump, I Jump, Jack"), but he also was a lot of grand gestures and not much substance, providing symmetry to Christopher as the guy she just couldn't quit.

Dean is who Lorelai would've picked. Logan is who Rory's grandparents would've picked. Jess is who Rory picked. From what we learned from the revival and the last four words (Rory: “Mom?” Lorelai: “Yeah?” Rory: “I'm pregnant.”), the intention for the end of the series was to go full circle and back to the beginning, with Rory following in the same footsteps as Lorelai, a la like mother like daughter.

In that regard, Jess is Rory's Luke. He has his warts, to be sure, but he also had the most character growth over the course of the original series. Plus, anyone who loves books, doesn't care about being cool, and has a way with being quick-witted is swoon-worthy, in my opinion.

Team Jess (especially Season 6 and Revival Jess), forever.

Brynn Stewart: Did Luke’s Diner have too many options? Should the menu have been condensed?

Apparently, Luke agrees with you, because there is an episode where he takes the Monte Cristo sandwich off the menu. Given that he and Caesar are the only cooks at a small-town diner, where people like Lorelai and Rory tend to loiter, it seems like there would be a lot of ingredient waste. But, that's just me.

Andrew Gnagy: In the 90s sitcom Everybody Loves Raymond, Ray is a sports writer and a common comedic theme is his friends and family not respecting his career. It's "not a real job" to them. Have you watched the show and if so can you relate?

I have watched the show. Well, not in its entirety, but I have seen several episodes. As you know from my introduction to this venture, I'm very lucky. My sister is the best, and my parents are also very supportive.

When my life was in a state of flux following college, my sister is actually who encouraged me to start writing. I submitted fan posts at Indy Cornrows, hoping that one day my work would get bumped up to the main page. When I got blindsided by the news that Vox Media would no longer be supporting Indy Cornrows, she came to my rescue again, telling me: "Cait, I'm not going to tell you what to do, but this doesn't have to be over unless you want it to be." That meant a lot, and along with her reassurance that she could help me with graphics and other artsy things that aren't exactly my thing, she encouraged me to give this a try. So, basically, if you like my tiny corner of the internet, thank my sister. If you don't like it, blame my sister.

I'm joking, but I will say this: I'm very blessed to do what I do, and I know this from personal experience, because there was a month where I wasn't doing it. With that being said, this is work. I have and will pull a lot of all-nighters. Whether the work that I, specifically, do is important can be left up to debate; however, if you're reading this, I assume that you value it. And, for that, I thank you.

(Special thanks to everyone who sent in questions. We'll do this again next month.)