Interesting Comments from NBA Commissioner

[cancontent]

Interesting comments from Commissioner Silver. What do BYers think? Does he have a point regarding there being more of a focus on games than practice in youth basketball in North America?

 

[JellyBean]

Thanks for sharing. The Commish makes a great point, like the late great Kobe Bryant has made and I am sure a lot of other NBA players & people have made over the years, about American youth basketball and the overall development of players and focus on games rather than practice. But we (AAU & High School coaches) have gotten better over the years and are focusing more on the development of players and getting more into practice vs games.

 

[hoophuskee]

Like what I'm hearing. One thing I have always felt is that 3-on-3 is a different game. When I hear UCONN players play it over the summer as part of league play or other - I cringe.

 

[cancontent]

Like what I'm hearing. One thing I have always felt is that 3-on-3 is a different game. When I hear UCONN players play it over the summer as part of league play or other - I cringe.

Really? Why?

When I used 3 x 3 with kids I coached, it helped them immensely. They understood spacing and ball movement a lot more. I believe it has a lot of benefits and I find it entertaining to watch.

 

[hoophuskee]

Really? Why?

When I used 3 x 3 with kids I coached, it helped them immensely. They understood spacing and ball movement a lot more. I believe it has a lot of benefits and I find it entertaining to watch.

Kids is different. I referenced UCONN players as an example. before - not kids.

In 3 on 3 when you drive for example - there is no nowhere near the help defense you get on a 5-on-5. When your shot is off as a guard in a 3 on 3 you can always get in closer. If you are a big - you can put the ball on the floor much easier.

All in all- with a 3 on 3 there is much less help on Defense and also much easier to make passes. But for kids- sure playing helps as they are learning the game. So all-in-all as you get older you are essentially "practicing" in a game that you are not going to experience when you then compete against a 5-on-5.

 

[cancontent]

Kids is different. I referenced UCONN players as an example. before - not kids.

In 3 on 3 when you drive for example - there is no nowhere near the help defense you get on a 5-on-5. When your shot is off as a guard in a 3 on 3 you can always get in closer. If you are a big - you can put the ball on the floor much easier.

All in all- with a 3 on 3 there is much less help on Defense and also much easier to make passes. But for kids- sure playing helps as they are learning the game. So all-in-all as you get older you are essentially "practicing" in a game that you are not going to experience when you then compete against a 5-on-5.

I also like the FIBA version as well for a couple reasons. One, it's an avenue for some who may not want to play a taxing pro career and remain competitive. The Plouffe sisters from Canada are a great example. They still play at a high level and continue in the sport the love.

The other reason is you get to see these players in a different style than WNBA/NCAA. The spacing compared to 5 on 5 is so different. And the pace can be frenetic because you don't get the same types of stoppages you're used to seeing.

 

[hoophuskee]

I also like the FIBA version as well for a couple reasons. One, it's an avenue for some who may not want to play a taxing pro career and remain competitive. The Plouffe sisters from Canada are a great example. They still play at a high level and continue in the sport the love.

The other reason is you get to see these players in a different style than WNBA/NCAA. The spacing compared to 5 on 5 is so different. And the pace can be frenetic because you don't get the same types of stoppages you're used to seeing.

Sure it might be fun-- but as a college fan if my team is playing a lot of it over the summer, I dont think it helps much vs practicing or playing 5-on-5.

 

[cancontent]

Sure it might be fun-- but as a college fan if my team is playing a lot of it over the summer, I dont think it helps much vs practicing or playing 5-on-5.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Seeing how players like Plum and Gray say how much 3x3 helped them develop their game during the Tokyo Olympics, I see benefits to it. Plus, in reality how often are UConn players participating in 3x3 during the college season? Don't recall seeing anyone on the roster the last few years.

 

[hoophuskee]

We'll have to agree to disagree. Seeing how players like Plum and Gray say how much 3x3 helped them develop their game during the Tokyo Olympics, I see benefits to it. Plus, in reality how often are UConn players participating in 3x3 during the college season? Don't recall seeing anyone on the roster the last few years.

Yes we'll have to agree to disagree. UCONN players now in WNBA had Katie Lou and Dolson play in some tournaments I believe. And I used to see to see the highlights and vids on the UCONN side. And I recall Christyn Williams hearing her play during the summer. See below. showing they have been active.

IMO it has either hurt or stunted their games or maybe they are just better suited for 3 on 3. I always felt I was better 3 on 3.

Christyn Williams is in Edmonton for 3x3 tournament

I do agree with the assists. She is getting some good chemistry with Alarie. Must be fun being the dominant player in Sabrina's absence. I believe that the stats shared on this message board previously may have favored Williams significantly when both Ionescu and Williams played together in a...

www.the-boneyard.com

Katie Lou and Coach Jen win FIBA 3x3 AmeriCup Title (merged)

https://www.usab.com/news/2023/11/usa-basketball-announces-2023-3x3-americup-rosters

the-boneyard.com

Stefanie Dolson on winning gold in Tokyo, the challenges of 3x3 basketball, and more

Sometimes overshadowed on the Chicago Sky, Stefanie Dolson stepped out onto the international stage this summer, winning a gold medal in Tokyo.

www.sbnation.com

Anyway, I'm associaiting with what the commish is talking about for games such as 3 on 3.

 

[cancontent]

Yes we'll have to agree to disagree. UCONN players now in WNBA had Katie Lou and Dolson play in some tournaments I believe. And I used to see to see the highlights and vids on the UCONN side. And I recall Christyn Williams hearing her play during the summer. See below. showing they have been active.

IMO it has either hurt or stunted their games or maybe they are just better suited for 3 on 3. I always felt I was better 3 on 3.

Christyn Williams is in Edmonton for 3x3 tournament

I do agree with the assists. She is getting some good chemistry with Alarie. Must be fun being the dominant player in Sabrina's absence. I believe that the stats shared on this message board previously may have favored Williams significantly when both Ionescu and Williams played together in a...

www.the-boneyard.com

Katie Lou and Coach Jen win FIBA 3x3 AmeriCup Title (merged)

https://www.usab.com/news/2023/11/usa-basketball-announces-2023-3x3-americup-rosters

the-boneyard.com

Stefanie Dolson on winning gold in Tokyo, the challenges of 3x3 basketball, and more

Sometimes overshadowed on the Chicago Sky, Stefanie Dolson stepped out onto the international stage this summer, winning a gold medal in Tokyo.

www.sbnation.com

Anyway, I'm associaiting with what the commish is talking about for games such as 3 on 3.

Regarding the commissioner, I took his concerns to be more about development over games as a whole. To your point earlier about 3 x 3, this is where it would be beneficial as kids hone their skills.

When my daughter was playing rep ball as a pre-teen, there were several coaches who kept trying to convince us that AAU ball was the way to go. Didn't see it making sense when kids are 11 - 13 personally. I opted for development programs in Ontario where she could improve her skills and compete locally through our provincial basketball association. I think it helped her overall and it definitely saved my pocketbook a few dollars.

 

[hoophuskee]

Regarding the commissioner, I took his concerns to be more about development over games as a whole. To your point earlier about 3 x 3, this is where it would be beneficial as kids hone their skills.

When my daughter was playing rep ball as a pre-teen, there were several coaches who kept trying to convince us that AAU ball was the way to go. Didn't see it making sense when kids are 11 - 13 personally. I opted for development programs in Ontario where she could improve her skills and compete locally through our provincial basketball association. I think it helped her overall and it definitely saved my pocketbook a few dollars.

Yes but again you are talking about Kids. I was not talking Kids - I'[m talking about High School (at some point) and College. Big difference. I had agreed with you at a young age 3 on 3 is fine. Great your daughter is learning with 3 on 3. Great! He brought up as overview of too many games. I specifically singled out 3 on 3 in later years. Overall he is talking about "too many games." And in High School and in College you still are in your youth.

Silver makes a comment when he specifically notes "high draft picks" are not ready. That's "youth." And those high draft picks came from College. That's what some of the NBA coaches are telling him that the players from College are not as ready as they should be. That's a portion of part of the development imo Silver is speaking about - too many games. And that is the portion in terms of age group I am mentioning. - Not the kids.

Do you agree that 3-on-3 is an easier game to shoot more efficiently and pass more efficiently? If so, I would agree, but why do you think so if you do?

 

[cancontent]

Yes but again you are talking about Kids. I was not talking Kids - I'[m talking about High School (at some point) and College. Big difference. I had agreed with you at a young age 3 on 3 is fine. Great your daughter is learning with 3 on 3. Great! He brought up as overview of too many games. I specifically singled out 3 on 3 in later years. Overall he is talking about "too many games." And in High School and in College you still are in your youth.

Silver makes a comment when he specifically notes "high draft picks" are not ready. That's "youth." And those high draft picks came from College. That's what some of the NBA coaches are telling him that the players from College are not as ready as they should be. That's a portion of part of the development imo Silver is speaking about - too many games. And that is the portion in terms of age group I am mentioning. - Not the kids.

Do you agree that 3-on-3 is an easier game to shoot more efficiently and pass more efficiently? If so, I would agree, but why do you think so if you do?

Sorry, but when did we agree on an age for "kids"? I would factor high school athletes to be kids as well. In Canada, 3 s 3 is very popular and I've been fortunate to attend clinics ran by Canada Basketball where 3 x 3 is incorporated into their elite stream training program. In my opinion, the benefits of 3 x 3 don't stop when one turns 12 or 13 years old.

And no, I don't agree that 3 x 3 is an easier game. Trying to compare it against 5 x 5 doesn't make sense either to me. The game is different, but one thing I think it does is require players to be more well rounded. The most successful players are able to do everything well. For those who play both styles, it makes them more versatile when playing 5 x 5.

 

[hoophuskee]

Sorry, but when did we agree on an age for "kids"? I would factor high school athletes to be kids as well. In Canada, 3 s 3 is very popular and I've been fortunate to attend clinics ran by Canada Basketball where 3 x 3 is incorporated into their elite stream training program. In my opinion, the benefits of 3 x 3 don't stop when one turns 12 or 13 years old.

And no, I don't agree that 3 x 3 is an easier game. Trying to compare it against 5 x 5 doesn't make sense either to me. The game is different, but one thing I think it does is require players to be more well rounded. The most successful players are able to do everything well. For those who play both styles, it makes them more versatile when playing 5 x 5.

Sorry but you used an example of pre-teen. I can only reply to what you type. And as far as "popular" where did anyone say the sport isn't popular? In fact it's part of the Olympics. " And I'll mention again I said High School. In USA High School is not 12-13 year olds so your points are getting hard to understand. I never said benefits will stop once one turns 12 /13. Which do you want to talk about 12/13 year old or H/S kids?

And If 3 on 3 and 5 on 5 - if you believe they are not comparable then what are you arguing? The Commish is specifically speaking of the NBA i.e. 5 on 5. If the games are so different (imo I agree they are), and the Commish is talking about the NBA, then why would versatility have the type of degree of mention you are stating? Who cares if a player is more versatile that they can play 3 on 3 if they aren't playing well as well as a 5 on 5 in the NBA? Unless you are suggesting a player that is most versatile means they are better? Jack-of-al-trades but master-of-none is not neccessarily better. The commissioner is talking NBA not about the versatility of playing 3-on-3 vs 5-0n-5. As we agreed 3-on-3 is a different game.

And as for your point The most successful players are able to do everything well. - this is untrue. Shaq, one of the greatest centers ever had little versatile. And Jon Stockton was never much of a rebounder. And not sure how great Stockton would be in 1-on-1. So hwo versatile is he? Just as 1-on-1 is different, so is 3-on-3, and so is 5-on-5.

Some players can be more versatile in all 3 but if the Commish is talking 5-on-5,-- then 1-on-1, and 3on-3, because they are different mean little in terms of versatility vs learning to play in the 5-on-5 game. That's the evaluation point.

I hope we aren't going to get mean with each other? We just disagree, right?

 

[cancontent]

Sorry but you used an example of pre-teen. I can only reply to what you type. And as far as "popular" where did anyone say the sport isn't popular? In fact it's part of the Olympics. " And I'll mention again I said High School. In USA High School is not 12-13 year olds so your points are getting hard to understand. I never said benefits will stop once one turns 12 /13. Which do you want to talk about 12/13 year old or H/S kids?

And If 3 on 3 and 5 on 5 - if you believe they are not comparable then what are you arguing? The Commish is specifically speaking of the NBA i.e. 5 on 5. If the games are so different (imo I agree they are), and the Commish is talking about the NBA, then why would versatility have the type of degree of mention you are stating? Who cares if a player is more versatile that they can play 3 on 3 if they aren't playing well as well as a 5 on 5 in the NBA? Unless you are suggesting a player that is most versatile means they are better? Jack-of-al-trades but master-of-none is not neccessarily better. The commissioner is talking NBA not about the versatility of playing 3-on-3 vs 5-0n-5. As we agreed 3-on-3 is a different game.

And as for your point The most successful players are able to do everything well. - this is untrue. Shaq, one of the greatest centers ever had little versatile. And Jon Stockton was never much of a rebounder. And not sure how great Stockton would be in 1-on-1. So hwo versatile is he? Just as 1-on-1 is different, so is 3-on-3, and so is 5-on-5.

Some players can be more versatile in all 3 but if the Commish is talking 5-on-5,-- then 1-on-1, and 3on-3, because they are different mean little in terms of versatility vs learning to play in the 5-on-5 game. That's the evaluation point.

I hope we aren't going to get mean with each other? We just disagree, right?

When I referring to "most successful" I was referring to in the 3 x 3 game. I don't think a player like Shaq would have had the same success in that type of environment as he was more in the paint than an inside/outside player, say like Jokic.

The reason why I say 3 x 3 and 5 x 5 is not comparable is because of the rules and the court that is used. If they were both played full court and used the same rules, then it would be fair to compare the two from my perspective.

Not sure how you're getting the impression that this is going to get terse. We disagree, but I've found the discussion to be productive in challenging each other's views.

 

[hoophuskee]

When I referring to "most successful" I was referring to in the 3 x 3 game. I don't think a player like Shaq would have had the same success in that type of environment as he was more in the paint than an inside/outside player, say like Jokic.

The reason why I say 3 x 3 and 5 x 5 is not comparable is because of the rules and the court that is used. If they were both played full court and used the same rules, then it would be fair to compare the two from my perspective.

Not sure how you're getting the impression that this is going to get terse. We disagree, but I've found the discussion to be productive in challenging each other's views.

Ahh I thought your past 1st sentence comment to me about age that we didn't agree might have been something leading to something worse. Glad it wasn’t. I thought you were getting angry with me.

Anyhow, If 3 on 3 and 5 on 5 are different then how is it that after a certain point that 3-on-3 would be that beneficial other than minimal? Shaq is regarded as an all-time great. If he can be that great in 5 on 5-- - and as you say Shaq wouldn't have had the same success in 3 on 3, then doesn't that lend to that 3 on 3 is not beneficial for some players just as it wouldn't be for Shaq? Instead wouldn’t it have been more beneficial for Shaq to work on practicing post moves and FT shooting as examples rather than play 3-on-3?

 

[cancontent]

Ahh I thought your past 1st sentence comment to me about age that we didn't agree might have been something leading to something worse. Glad it wasn’t. I thought you were getting angry with me.

Anyhow, If 3 on 3 and 5 on 5 are different then how is it that after a certain point that 3-on-3 would be beneficial? Shaq is regarded as an all-time great. If he can be that great in 5 on 5-- - and as you say Shaq wouldn't have had the same success in 3 on 3, then doesn't that lend to that 3 on 3 is not beneficial for some players just as it wouldn't be for Shaq? Instead wouldn’t it have been more beneficial for Shaq to work on practicing post moves and FT shooting as examples rather than play 3-on-3?

Re Shaq, in today's era of basketball, maybe??? It's hard to say because the approach to basketball for bigs was very different back then. I wouldn't be surprised if he had developed into an inside out player if he was playing basketball in its current form.

Re your question about the benefits of 3 x 3, as I've stated before, it forces players to do a lot more than they may do in a 5 x 5 environment. For example, post players being able to defend the perimeter better because they can't stay within the key with their check. They better understand how to defend different spots on the floor and learn how to deal with mismatches better when having to defend a smaller player in space.

I don't see a cut off point with respect to benefits. Similar to how people talk about the benefits of playing multiple sports like Patrick Mahomes, playing multiple styles of basketball expands the capabilities of the player.

 

[hoophuskee]

Re Shaq, in today's era of basketball, maybe??? It's hard to say because the approach to basketball for bigs was very different back then. I wouldn't be surprised if he had developed into an inside out player if he was playing basketball in its current form.

Re your question about the benefits of 3 x 3, as I've stated before, it forces players to do a lot more than they may do in a 5 x 5 environment. For example, post players being able to defend the perimeter better because they can't stay within the key with their check. They better understand how to defend different spots on the floor and learn how to deal with mismatches better when having to defend a smaller player in space.

I don't see a cut off point with respect to benefits. Similar to how people talk about the benefits of playing multiple sports like Patrick Mahomes, playing multiple styles of basketball expands the capabilities of the player.

IMO over the past 30 years at UCONN there have been a few highly rated recruits that join UCONN in which the team is a powerhouse. They are the same type of guards that you'd expect to do very well in 3-on-3 in which they are quick enough to get into the lane but they don’t shoot very well (not awful) from the outside. But as we discussed – 3-on-3 is different. UCONN usually has some supreme players that are much more efficient scorers and as a result the players -the specific guards that can’t shoot well won't play (unless they are supreme defenders, or you have holes in your lineup, or injury) in big games because the defense leaves them wide open. The 3-on-3 doesn’t help this player. There is an illusion that they can still score. Maybe in befitis them vs teh bottm-tier / mediocre teams.

IN a 3-on-3 they can still get in the lane or just outside of it because there are less defenders to help. This is one example of a type of pitfalls of 3-on-3 that eventually catch up to a player. In 3-on-3 they can still be threat to score due to the court being wide open. In a 5-on-5 the player becomes a weakness because the Offense is competing as though its 4-on-5 and there is more help defense to prevent the guard from gettign in the lane with limited defensive exposure. The “versatility impact” that is so valued is greatly minimized. If you are a guard and you can’t score, and you can’t get offensive rebounds, then eventually you are that weakness on Offense. And to add this the Commish is talking about “quality of NBA players.” SO the player that starts for a bottom-tier team – sure the more they play in any manner the better including 3-on-3- but overall not for the player looking to become a pro.

Also talk about Shaq- Shaq should not try versatility lookign at his past and proejcting to even in today’s era. Shaq was a specimen that was near unstoppable inside. If he learned to play outside the way Embiid tries to do—he would be doing the defense a favor as EMbid does -- at least from 3. Versatility is two-edged sword. In this case he’d be taking valuable time away from inside moves/ footwork etc and free throws all beucase he wants ot be more versatile yet he is only doing the Defense a favor.

As far as Defense in 3-on-3 – because the game is different ––playing Defense in 3 on 3 is vastly different than 5 on 5. So again playing the 3-on-3 as they get older is minimizing growth unless they are just a better player 3-on-3. Defenses in 5-on-5 are best as a unit and that two additional players defending changes things radically from 3-on-3 vs 5-on-5. Whiel oyu work a lot more 1-on-1 Defense in 3 on-3 - with 5 players there is more help in which the player is playing within a 5-on-5 structure. They are vastly different.

 

[CamrnCrz1974]

Also talk about Shaq- Shaq should not try versatility lookign at his past and proejcting to even in today’s era. Shaq was a specimen that was near unstoppable inside. If he learned to play outside the way Embiid tries to do—he would be doing the defense a favor as EMbid does -- at least from 3. Versatility is two-edged sword. In this case he’d be taking valuable time away from inside moves/ footwork etc and free throws all beucase he wants ot be more versatile yet he is only doing the Defense a favor.

This is one of the reasons why Shaq's tenure with the Phoenix Suns was nowhere near a success.

Under Mike D'Antoni, Phoenix ran a lot of five-out on offense, with Steve Nash as the conductor. Nash was free to roam through the paint with four other players cutting or using screens to get open from the outside (Shawn Marion and the corner three, Amar'e Stoudemire and the foul line jumper, etc.).

With Shaq essentially planted to/by/near the paint, it clogged the driving and passing lanes for Nash -- not to mention Shaq not playing with the same intensity as he did earlier in his career (and not paying attention to basketball fitness as he aged).

 

[hoophuskee]

This is one of the reasons why Shaq's tenure with the Phoenix Suns was nowhere near a success.

Under Mike D'Antoni, Phoenix ran a lot of five-out on offense, with Steve Nash as the conductor. Nash was free to roam through the paint with four other players cutting or using screens to get open from the outside (Shawn Marion and the corner three, Amar'e Stoudemire and the foul line jumper, etc.).

With Shaq essentially planted to/by/near the paint, it clogged the driving and passing lanes for Nash -- not to mention Shaq not playing with the same intensity as he did earlier in his career (and not paying attention to basketball fitness as he aged).

And Mike D’Antoni’s style was probably a major reason why he never got to an NBA Finals. Who was the team that generayyl beat his best teams?-- San Antonio i.e.. Tim Duncan. I/e another player that mostly lived inside. Similar to Shaq. And Shaq was a shadow of his former self by that time he joined Phoenix. In 06-07 Pat Riley's Heat with Shaq got swept in 4. The following year Miami shutdown their team. That highlights what Shaq was late in his career and what Riley thought of him. WHen Phoenx made the trade for Shaq - they knew they weren't going to win it all before the trade was made. They need some lane clogging whether it be Offense or Defense. Coach D's teams weren't known much for that. IMO that was always his shortcoming as a coach.

Note how Shaq in his prime dominated the game. While for all of Mike D and Captain Canada (love the Nickname and Nashty too) and Marion had this amazing versatility (it was beautiful to watch) it was the player(s) "that clogged the lane" with not much versatility that beat them. Two of the inside players that beat Mike D; Tim Duncan and Tyson Chandler; Inside players that "clogged the lane."

And just to highlight Mike D's style. As a Knicks coach in his 4 seasons he got to playoffs his last two years. In that Playoff span they were 1-8. The very next year, The Knicks had more of a Defensive-minded coach and they won their 1st round. So, what good was his versatility? It had a ceiling. At some point they hit a wall and teams that can play sound defense and had some sort of conventional offense/defesne inevitably beat his free-flowing teams. IMO Shaq in his prime would have destroyed a Mike D coached team – and I’m not much of a fan of Shaq.

 

[Alydar]

Interesting comments from Commissioner Silver. What do BYers think? Does he have a point regarding there being more of a focus on games than practice in youth basketball in North America?

Silver's comments sounds almost exactly like Auriemma's comments comparing US vs Euro players.

 

[cancontent]

IMO over the past 30 years at UCONN there have been a few highly rated recruits that join UCONN in which the team is a powerhouse. They are the same type of guards that you'd expect to do very well in 3-on-3 in which they are quick enough to get into the lane but they don’t shoot very well (not awful) from the outside. But as we discussed – 3-on-3 is different. UCONN usually has some supreme players that are much more efficient scorers and as a result the players -the specific guards that can’t shoot well won't play (unless they are supreme defenders, or you have holes in your lineup, or injury) in big games because the defense leaves them wide open. The 3-on-3 doesn’t help this player. There is an illusion that they can still score. Maybe in befitis them vs teh bottm-tier / mediocre teams.

IN a 3-on-3 they can still get in the lane or just outside of it because there are less defenders to help. This is one example of a type of pitfalls of 3-on-3 that eventually catch up to a player. In 3-on-3 they can still be threat to score due to the court being wide open. In a 5-on-5 the player becomes a weakness because the Offense is competing as though its 4-on-5 and there is more help defense to prevent the guard from gettign in the lane with limited defensive exposure. The “versatility impact” that is so valued is greatly minimized. If you are a guard and you can’t score, and you can’t get offensive rebounds, then eventually you are that weakness on Offense. And to add this the Commish is talking about “quality of NBA players.” SO the player that starts for a bottom-tier team – sure the more they play in any manner the better including 3-on-3- but overall not for the player looking to become a pro.

Also talk about Shaq- Shaq should not try versatility lookign at his past and proejcting to even in today’s era. Shaq was a specimen that was near unstoppable inside. If he learned to play outside the way Embiid tries to do—he would be doing the defense a favor as EMbid does -- at least from 3. Versatility is two-edged sword. In this case he’d be taking valuable time away from inside moves/ footwork etc and free throws all beucase he wants ot be more versatile yet he is only doing the Defense a favor.

As far as Defense in 3-on-3 – because the game is different ––playing Defense in 3 on 3 is vastly different than 5 on 5. So again playing the 3-on-3 as they get older is minimizing growth unless they are just a better player 3-on-3. Defenses in 5-on-5 are best as a unit and that two additional players defending changes things radically from 3-on-3 vs 5-on-5. Whiel oyu work a lot more 1-on-1 Defense in 3 on-3 - with 5 players there is more help in which the player is playing within a 5-on-5 structure. They are vastly different.

1) While I see your point, this issue can also be a problem with how 5 x 5 is currently played. There are a lot of 1-on-1 players out there due to what's considered "popular" at the grassroots level and it's filtered into the NCAA. Players who haven't been exposed to concepts like 5-out, read and react, and 3 x 3 struggle with the transition because they can't dominate in a 1-on-1 situation as much as they used to at the high school level.

2) Yes defense is different, but it isn't as 1-on-1 as you perceive it to be. When players switch, you're now forced to find that open player which requires a fair bit of scrambling from what I've seen in FIBA 3 x 3 tournaments. This challenges players to recognize switching situations much faster. I believe this helps in a 5 x 5 environment, because they have to see the whole floor a lot better than in a 5 x 5 environment. Help is great, but if you get into the habit of just expecting it when things breakdown, it's pointless.

 

[hoophuskee]

1) While I see your point, this issue can also be a problem with how 5 x 5 is currently played. There are a lot of 1-on-1 players out there due to what's considered "popular" at the grassroots level and it's filtered into the NCAA. Players who haven't been exposed to concepts like 5-out, read and react, and 3 x 3 struggle with the transition because they can't dominate in a 1-on-1 situation as much as they used to at the high school level.

2) Yes defense is different, but it isn't as 1-on-1 as you perceive it to be. When players switch, you're now forced to find that open player which requires a fair bit of scrambling from what I've seen in FIBA 3 x 3 tournaments. This challenges players to recognize switching situations much faster. I believe this helps in a 5 x 5 environment, because they have to see the whole floor a lot better than in a 5 x 5 environment. Help is great, but if you get into the habit of just expecting it when things breakdown, it's pointless.

I don't quite understand your point regarding 5-on-5. The thread is discussing NBA (and I'm also lumping WNBA into it). The great 1-on-1 player or great 3-on3 player needs to adjust to 5-on-5. SO 5-on-5 isn't "the problem." Either the player adjusts or they won't play professionally and or at a high level college program.

In regard to 3-on-3 there is definitely more 1-on-1 in a 3-on-3 than a 5-on-5. Not all plays are a switch. And while many are- then eventually many become one-on-one at the point of a switch. Adn this is the point I brought up about some past UCONN guards that they didn't have that great of outside shots so at some point they get left wide open to take outside shots but can't get in the lane due to teams sagging off of them. In a 3-on-3 they can get in the lane due to the athleticism with less defenders to oppose them.

Imo there is some value but at some point it flatlines. That’s just an opinion. But 3-on-3 is an easier game to score (somewhere I read 54% in 3-on-3 vs 50% for 5-on-5 maybe in the lane or something I can't recall.) and it is a different game. Playing a different game quite a bit of the time just seems so logical that it doesn’t help very much at some point. I always felt that as well about myself when I played just in my measly h/s days. And as stated some maybe are better suited to be a 3-on-3 player or a 1-on-1 player. Maybe they live in a small town and don’t get as much practice in 5-on-5’s etc. Just throwing that out there for conversation.

 

[cancontent]

I don't quite understand your point regarding 5-on-5. The thread is discussing NBA (and I'm also lumping WNBA into it). The great 1-on-1 player or great 3-on3 player needs to adjust to 5-on-5. SO 5-on-5 isn't "the problem." Either the player adjusts or they won't play professionally and or at a high level college program.

In regard to 3-on-3 there is definitely more 1-on-1 in a 3-on-3 than a 5-on-5. Not all plays are a switch. And while many are- then eventually many become one-on-one at the point of a switch. Adn this is the point I brought up about some past UCONN guards that they didn't have that great of outside shots so at some point they get left wide open to take outside shots but can't get in the lane due to teams sagging off of them. In a 3-on-3 they can get in the lane due to the athleticism with less defenders to oppose them.

Imo there is some value but at some point it flatlines. That’s just an opinion. But 3-on-3 is an easier game to score (somewhere I read 54% in 3-on-3 vs 50% for 5-on-5 maybe in the lane or something I can't recall.) and it is a different game. Playing a different game quite a bit of the time just seems so logical that it doesn’t help very much at some point. I always felt that as well about myself when I played just in my measly h/s days. And as stated some maybe are better suited to be a 3-on-3 player or a 1-on-1 player. Maybe they live in a small town and don’t get as much practice in 5-on-5’s etc. Just throwing that out there for conversation.

My point about 5x5 was in response to your opinion that 3x3 contributes to a lot of 1x1 play when they transition to 5x5 competition. From my observation this happening not because of 3 x 3, but the trend of kids being coached by trainers who copy what they see in the NBA (multiple dribbling combos to "break ankles", etc.). Not saying that having 1x1 skills isn't important, but it's gotten to a point where some think that's all they need to be successful when that's not the case.

 

[Kaizen]

Why there is no 4-on-4?

 

[hoophuskee]

My point about 5x5 was in response to your opinion that 3x3 contributes to a lot of 1x1 play when they transition to 5x5 competition. From my observation this happening not because of 3 x 3, but the trend of kids being coached by trainers who copy what they see in the NBA (multiple dribbling combos to "break ankles", etc.). Not saying that having 1x1 skills isn't important, but it's gotten to a point where some think that's all they need to be successful when that's not the case.

I don't agree. When I was playng as a kid back in the 1800's - I could deduce on my own on a 3-on-3 if I had an advanatge to go 1-on1. I had much more open space to make the decision. I believe this still holds true. Sure there is also bad coaching.