Let’s remember something, positions in basketball are a fallacy. This isn’t the NFL where players are designated to specific positions. Neither is it baseball.
You wouldn’t see a shortstop throw a pitch with a designated pitcher standing on the mound. There’s no goalkeeper either like you’d see in soccer.
Basketball is all about putting together the best lineup of talented athletes and then concocting a playbook around them. Either that – or you write the script and recruit players who fit that particular style. It’s Hollywood for sports.
Think Ocean’s Eleven. George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Julia Roberts, Matt Damon, Bernie Mac, Andy Garcia, Don Cheadle and the list goes on…
A hall of fame cast with all stars off the bench. Is this Hollywood’s equivalent to the 2016-17 Golden State Warriors? Did Steve Kerr phone Steven Soderbergh to try and figure out which actors to slot in certain scenes?
What if film was limited to positions like other sports? Clooney at point guard with a dilemma: you can then only pick Pitt or Damon at shooting guard. There’s no rule stopping it, so why not just play three guards? Throw Julia Roberts in at forward and Bernie Mac at the five. Slip your fab fitting five on the court and you’re good to go.
I could throw five Draymond Greens on the court and no referee would call our team for a violation – although maybe a bucketload of technical fouls. There’s no set rule specifying positions on a court, only the total amount of players you’re allowed at any one time.
Every basketball coach numbers their players one to five. ‘One’ is known to fans as the point guard, ‘five’ the centre – you know the rest in between. Each coach requires something different from their players. For instance, Frank Vogel’s ‘one’ for the Los Angeles Lakers is different to Mike Budenholzer’s ‘one’ for the Milwaukee Bucks.
Some teams even have interchangeable positions. Each guard on the Bucks interchanges between the one and two spots. Their role can change depending on the possession. Same with the San Antonio Spurs – whichever big man nabs the rebound becomes the four – the other who doesn’t, sprints down the court for an early score.
The Lakers might require their 5-man to play in the low post whereas the Milwaukee Bucks generally play their 5-man at the top of the perimeter. Watch this first Bucks play carefully. Ersan Ilyasova rebounds the ball and becomes the five – meaning Brook Lopez needs to fill in the other guard spot on the wing.
This works fine for the Bucks because their offence is designed to include interchangeable positions. One possession Lopez is the five, the next possession he’s a shooter working the perimeter.
It’s not uncommon to see Giannis Antetokounmpo fill in the five spot one play, then occupy either of the two guard spots on the next trip down the floor.
The Denver Nuggets recently matched up against the Washington Wizards and it presented an opportunity like no other: how would a positionless lineup fare against one of the biggest offensive threats in the league?
The Nuggets went for a patented lineup that included Nikola Jokic (7’0”), Jerami Grant (6’8”), Bol Bol (7’2”), Paul Millsap (6’7”) and Mason Plumlee (6’11”) – the modern day Monstars. Pace and space you’re thinking? Nope, they’ve gone with slow gameplay, post ups and spaced shooters.
They’ve gone backwards – and it works.
Jokic may have been listed at point guard, but he would play his normal role for most of the game. Crisp clean passes in the open court, looking for teammates coming off screens and don’t forget elbow post ups. The Nuggets are a little different than your average team. Players like Jokic and Plumlee distribute the ball from the top and work a nice two-man game with scoring guards like Jamal Murray and Troy Daniels.
Nikola Jokic (15) of the Denver Nuggets . (Photo by AAron Ontiveroz/MediaNews Group/The Denver Post via Getty Images)
For a lot of teams, it’s defence first. If a matchup works defensively, what can we do offensively? The Nuggets began in a 2-1-2 zone. Why don’t we see zones more often in the NBA? Zones slow down the pace of the game for the opponent, critical for the Nuggets who are the second slowest team in the league in terms of pace and possessions. The Wizards however?
They’re the 6th fastest team in the league and one of the worst defensively. It’s also difficult to beat a zone against length and we established that the Nuggets starting lineup against the Wizards was a combined 500 feet tall, that’s a plus.
One of the biggest difficulties playing a zone in the NBA is that the central player must avoid a defensive three second call. FIBA rules don’t enforce this, which is why you see a greater number of international teams exploiting the strategy. In the NBA, a defensive player may not remain in the paint for longer than three seconds, unless they’re actively guarding an opponent. Couple that with the fact that the NBA also contains some of the best shooters in the world, making zone defences troubling to execute.
The Nuggets posted up on almost every possession to begin the game. They were solely focused on exploiting guard Shabazz Napier in hope that Washington would take him off the floor and succumb to the pressure. Ironically, sitting Napier on the bench would probably help the Wizards more than the Nuggets.
Yesterday’s matchup against the New Orleans Pelicans was no different. Denver looked to post up everyone from J.J. Redick – to Jrue Holiday – to Lonzo Ball.
Napier is 6’1” and looked like Calvin Cambridge in a Quentin Tarantino directed version of Like Mike. If the Nuggets could utilise this mismatch, the other Wizards guard on the roster was no lengthier. Ish Smith was only 6’0” tall himself – sign the real Bow Wow onto the roster and you’ve got yourself a script.
Possession after possession, they posted up Napier. Nuggets coach Michael Malone didn’t even need to call set plays, neither did Jokic. Whoever Napier was guarding would force themselves close to the hoop and seal the innocent short man, resulting in an easy two points for the Nuggets. The other players spaced on the three-point line and gave the player room to work – even Mason Plumlee, who has hit two three-pointers in 524 career NBA games.
They abused Napier down low. I mean totally milked it – like when The Footy Show cashed in on Garry Lyon on the stretcher, that kind of milking. Finally, a timeout was called and the Wizards resorted to a zone defence to keep Napier on the floor.
Once Troy Daniels set foot on the floor for the Nuggets, Denver returned to their iconic two man game at the top – a signature play that’s normally used between Jokic and Jamal Murray. Despite this being an exhibition matchup, what was inexplicable was the Wizards lack of full court pressure on Jokic.
If he’s bringing the ball up the court, your best bet is to pressure him to either keep the ball out of his hands or force him out of control. Make Denver go small and bring a ball handler onto the court.
Regardless, positions in basketball differ from one team to another. How you design your system one to five defines the nuances of each player’s role, as well as who is interchangeable.
Even if you play as the three-man on offence, you have freedom of choice over which position you want to guard defensively. The Nuggets could throw their Monstars lineup on the floor as they weren’t intending to do anything but post up and zone.
But it got me thinking: what is the best positionless lineup you can put together from NBA history? Can I request five Michael Jordans?
As Bill Simmons said on his podcast a few years back, “five Michael Jordans might end up shooting each other over gambling debt, it wouldn’t work.”
One documentary later and I’m totally convinced they might.
Samuel Laffy
Roar Guru
I'm going to throw Andrei Kirilenko's name in to the ring for a spot in a 'positionless five' - the man is one of only a handful of blokes to have multiples 5 x 5 statlines (and he's a Jazz boy so I'll always be backing him in!) Plus, he has an absurd full back dragon tattoo.
Jonathan Simon
Roar Rookie
Thanks for the comment! We're on the same page, you've just interpreted the article a little differently. :happy: I also followed that up with: "either that – or you write the script and recruit players who fit that particular style." I've argued both sides here — I'm all for the best fit! :happy: Look at how the Bucks have built an offence around Giannis. Great team play = wins. However LeBron's Lakers have just chucked together a roster of as many good players as they could get their hands on, it doesn't fit as perfectly as the Bucks, but somehow they figured it out. Both are two of the best teams in the league. Even LBJ's Heat teams weren't the ideal fit on the court and you're right, they should've won four titles instead of two, but they still won two. Fortunately and unfortunately, talent sometimes triumphs a less talented, unselfish team. I hate it, but it's just the way the world works. I disagree about positions, everyone defines each position differently and it's become a touch too old school. For example, you could say a power forward needs to rebound and play mid-range — whereas I might want a PF to distribute the offence and space the floor. Then there's a million extra positions now for each position, like "stretch 4", "point forward", etc. We should simply understand a player's skill set and then use them appropriately. Not define them to a "position" and then expect them to play like others at that same position. It's how you use them, now what they are defined as. For example, just because someone might be listed as a PG, doesn't mean I can't trade for them and play them as a 2 or 3-man, especially if I feel that better suits their skill set in my offensive system. A lot of people discuss things like "my team needs a point guard, a centre, etc." — not all 'point guards' and 'centres' play the same way so how are you going to use them and what exactly for? When you watch the Bucks for example, they have three positions. The 1 and 2 fill the wings, the 3 and 4 fill the corners and the 5 fills the top of the perimeter. Some positions are interchangeable depending on how they are filled coming down the floor. The "point guard" was defined decades ago as the player who sets up the offence, etc. That's old school now. Teams like the Bucks are progressive thinkers and understand that an assigned and trusted "ball handler" can run an offence. It can be Giannis, Eric Bledsoe, George Hill, Pat Connaughton, etc. All of those guys play different positions and roles. The Spurs are much different, they have a 1 who executes their motion, 2 and 3 share similar roles, as well as the 4 and 5. 2/3 and 4/5 are sometimes interchangeable when the Spurs want them to be. At the end of the day, it's how you use your five players, which is why each team plays differently. The Rockets were 32-18 (64%) before the Capela trade and 8-6 (57%) after the trade. Let's be honest, small ball or not, were the Rockets ever going to win a title? The Nuggets lineup is most likely temporary until Jamal Murray returns regardless. What would be interesting is a small ball lineup with LeBron, MJ, Curry, Klay and Kobe. 5 Magics though, can't argue with that :shocked:
astro
Roar Rookie
Thanks for writing this, and although I'll disagree with some of your sentiments, dont think I dont appreciate an article like this that makes you think about the game! So, I think this idea of going 'tall' or going 'small' is a gimmick, and I disagree with the notion that "positions in basketball are a fallacy" Basketball has been around a while now, and there's a reason positions have developed as they have. They're complementary. In fact, that's part of the beauty of basketball. That to be played well, the 5 positions on the floor need to be complementary and have players working in unison. Teams have tried going big or small well before the Rockets and Denver, and there's a reason none have stuck with this approach...simply put, it doesn't work. The Warriors are possibly the only exception, although they still played with Bogut or Pachulia on the floor for large amounts of time. I also disagree with this the idea that "Basketball is all about putting together the best lineup of talented athletes and then concocting a playbook around them."...again, to me, its about 'fit'. Not just talent. We saw this is 2011 when a significantly more talented team, lost to a team which played better complementary basketball. And this isn't the only example. As a final note, the best 'position-less' player in my mind, was Magic. He's one of the only guys who truly could play anywhere on the floor, and was selfless enough to make it work wherever he played. So, I'm taking 5 Magics over 5 MJs...
josh
Roar Rookie
It was on one of the US sport talk shows, and I echo their comments, the 5 talls for the Nuggets and the Rockets small ball probably aren't going to win a championship. The 5 positions have specialist skills that when together complement each other. Saying that 5 Lebron's would be something to watch. Which is kinda of what the NBA is becoming finding those point-forwards to fill all 5 spots, then you might on to something.