Vandalus said:
ducky23 said:
Lakers fans on here will probably disagree with me, but I think Darvin Ham made two tactical mistakes in game 5
First, I'm a little surprised the Lakers didn't just punt game 5 like they did in the Memphis series. I felt like the lakers didn't have very high expectations of winning game 5. Lebron went hard, but at maybe 80-85%? I feel like the Lakers needed to either go All-in trying to end it, or completely punt it. By going halfway, Lebron played 39 minutes, AD was on track to play similar minutes before he got hurt and both lebron and Schroeder looked like they re-aggravated previous injuries.
The much larger tactical error was revealing how the Lakers are going to counter the high PnR against AD. Clearly, even with AD switching off of green, it wasn't helping as both Wiggins and GP2 were eating the lakers alive leading the 4 on 3.
So I think Ham mistakingly showed his counter of just switching everything. Now Kerr has two days to game plan against it. I would've saved this wrinkle for game 6
Again, I don't think there's a great solution for the warriors high PnR. You can't play 4 on 3 with AD on the perimeter. Switching isn't an awful option. But it has its flaws. First, when AD switches onto curry, AD is now attached to curry on the perimeter. Effectively allowing the warriors to play 4 on 4 with AD on the perimeter. I'm sorry, but Wiggins is just going to destroy Schroeder/Reaves when AD is not protecting the basket. Second option is you can also run curry around on off ball screen with AD trying to follow. Third option, curry can just try to cook AD on the perimeter.
If I'm the lakers, and if I'm going to switch everything, I think you've got to play Vanderbilt more. He only played 11 minutes in game 5. I don't care if he hamstrings your offense. You stick him on curry. You play AD on Wiggins. When the switch comes, Vanderbilt switches onto Wiggins. At that point, if you're the lakers, you take your chances. If curry beats AD one on one, you tip your hat. But at least you go down with your best player on the warriors best player.
If I'm the warriors, I keep spamming the high PnR until the lakers prove they can stop it (they haven't yet). If the warriors keep going to the PnR, play smart and don't turn the ball over and don't play hero ball and still lose? I can live with that. The lakers are the better team.
I don't pretend to know a lot about basketball x's and o's, so forgive the poorly worded question in advance. It seemed to me that in games 3 and 4 (especially 4) the high PnR resulted in a lot of great open looks at the basket based on curry's decision making, but that often it left Thompson sitting not getting much action. To my untrained eye, it either worked to perfection (whether a score or not); or it got mucked up due to good defense and then either a bad decision was made resulting in a TO, or it just looked like the warriors were kind of stuck; the action didn't work and then it was up to someone to make a one on one play, which is not usually sustainable.
In game 5, when they ran it, it looked great for the most part again - and can see the adjustments that the lakers made especially in the 3rd Q with the switch. Would it make sense that the W's should start this action earlier in the shot clock, in order to then have a backup plan to get back to their motion offense if the high PnR doesn't result in a good shot? Honestly - to my untrained eye - it seems like for this series it's either feast or famine; the W's either get phenomenal looks, or it turns into a mess and that results in a real bad shot or a TO.
On the flip side - the Lakers were getting just as many great looks of their own, and were shooting at a pretty insane clip (48% for the game; but in the first half I could have sworn it was close to 60% from the floor). It definitely seemed that either team was having long stretches of not being able to stop the other. Are you seeing any counter's for what the W's can be doing on defense to slow the lakers down, or is it pretty much a given that they are going to shoot ~50% for the rest of the series?
I don't think the high PnR (when they've targeted AD) has been feast or famine at all. It's been pretty much just feast. Game 2 it was a layup line. Game 3 got a little wonky cause the Lakers showed a wrinkle by putting AD on Wiggins instead of Green. But by game 4, warriors made the adjustment and just had Wiggins/gp2 run the 4 on 3.
In game 4, the only reason they warriors lost was because they inexplicable went away from the AD pnr. For instance, in the first half they ran 24 pnrs at AD which netted an absurd 1.46 xpps (expected points per shot). For whatever reason, in the second half, they only ran 6 pnrs at AD. Instead opting to run their normal motion offense which resulted in klay hero ball.
Before game 5, Kerr admitted he should have run more pnr in the 2H of game 4. Predictably, warriors ran PnR at AD over and over in game 5 and again it resulted in a layup line. Warriors shot 60% inside the arc.
On the other end, the warriors are completely content with the defense they've been playing. They are fine playing AD one on one and giving up mid rangers. If AD makes those he makes those. They are also ok with semi contested threes from pretty much anyone besides Russell.
The only key on defense is not fouling. They are ok with giving up semi contested shots. But they cannot foul. It slows the game down, gives the lakers rest and prevents the warriors from running.
Unless the lakers are shooting over 50%, the warriors are completely happy with their defensive strategy, as long as they don't foul. The warriors are betting that as long as it's a track meet, even if the lakers make some shots here and there, they won't be able to keep up.
The problem only comes when the lakers are getting 20 more free throw attempts.
