APBRmetrics

Kind of an open-ended topic, very interested in hearing some opinions. Some questions to consider (though feel free to comment on the topic in general):

1) Do you think lineups with shooters at both traditional big man positions, are a realistic and/or productive direction for teams to take? Poster acrossthecourt wrote a bit about this last playoffs:

http://www.gotbuckets.com/2014/05/01/pa ... -shooting/

Alternatively, are pairings of specialist defensive bigs and stretch 4s (as opposed to two shooters) here to stay due to the offensive/defensive balance? Shea/Baker wrote about role players of both types in their recent title:

http://www.amazon.com/Basketball-Analyt ... 1492923176

2) With the emphasis on the corner 3, efficiency optimization, and spacing in general, is it a reasonable strategy in today's league to try and build an elite offense around a back-to-the-basket big man? Or is it so much of a handicap, that even an outlier-level post up scoring talent would make it too difficult, within reason? If this is the case, should more young bigs be brought up and taught instead to finish in the restricted area, and operate within a pick-and-roll environment?

3) Is it preferable to build around a paint protector with plenty of size (but largely stationary) or a more mobile big (with superior lateral quickness, ability to recover, etc.)? EDIT: Please keep in mind that these physical advantages/disadvantages could potentially affect their play on the offensive end as well.

This seems kind of like one of those "How long should a person's legs be?" questions. The role of a big man should be dictated by his skills. There's still plenty of room for bigs to do "traditional" big man work like rebounding, protecting the rim, setting screens, etc. There's also plenty of room for bigs to shoot threes, pass, handle the ball on the perimeter, etc. Depends on the big.

1. More shooting can't hurt, unless it comes at a cost elsewhere. It's very hard to find big men who can shoot well enough from the perimeter and still protect the rim at the defensive end. Given the choice, I'd probably go for the defender.

When a team has that interior defensive presence, it's much easier to play "smaller" at the other positions. I'm thinking of situations like Green at the 4 next to Bogut or Carmelo at the 4 next to Chandler (a couple seasons ago).

2. Look at how far analytics has come. We are actually debating the value of a back-to-the-basket big. A big and his defender on the block can significantly limit the driving possibilities for his teammates. I'd like to see a study (with spatial tracking data) on how limiting this is. This is one of the great advantages of pick and rolls with centers. When Bogut comes out to set a screen on Curry's man, the opposing team's center has to debate coming out of the paint to hedge on that screen. Still, I do believe a team can build an elite offense around a post-up big. Teams seem to be trending towards smaller lineups. If that continues, a good back-to-the-basket big will draw a lot of double teams. Double teams mean open catch and shoot perimeter shots. (And it would help if the big could shoot free throws.)

3. I would focus more on skill sets than body type. I think sometimes we are fooled into thinking the more athletic center has more potential to protect the rim than another "heavy-footed" center. This is not always the case. Quicker big men can get out and finish on the break, but I'd prioritize the role of defending/rebounding to start the break for a team's center.

Thanks for the responses so far.

As for (3), apologies for any confusion. Wasn't my intention to minimize the significance of player skillsets. Rather, I was just trying to note that a player's physical advantages/disadvantages would carry over to his offense as well (the intention was just to pose a question about the importance of mobility in defensive big men today). I'll edit the OP.

To build around a back to basket post guy, he should offer a combo of either drawing lots of double teams (is this publicly tracked? link?), drawing lots of fouls and hitting the free throws and / or being an adept passer. The in the paint but not at the rim shot is usually not anything special by itself.

Probably more important than scale and effectiveness of post up game in most cases are offensive rebounding and what happens next. The ability to finish or get fouled after offensive rebounds is heightened when a high frequency of team 3 pt ftas is employed. The ability to pass out for another 3 pt attempt or to hit a cutter without a high rate of turnovers is also a big plus.

I think there has been some study of overall effectiveness of different offensive play mixes in the league, regular season that suggested there are several decent but very different ways to a good offensive efficiency but this is a fuzzy memory. I don't think there has been a study focused on relative efficiencies of different offensive mixes in late playoff rounds, but that would be key to me with regard to overall strategy and what interior player strategy to choose.

To be thorough and fair, I'd want to check the apparent value of high frequency, above average mid-range shooting big man like title-winning Garnett, Gasol and the dual 2 /3 threats of Nowitski and Bosh. It may be important to focus on late in the clock performance. Duncan isn't used that heavy but his mid-range shooting is still a notable factor.