Quote: Originally posted by a_in_the_b on 11/18/2009I hear allot of people sort of dismiss BH for post players. .anyone have any thoughts on that? I've sort of been tabbing any post, mentally, with decent ath and speed, and a good BH and speed as a potential SF candidate depending on other qualities. I sort of treat SF< usually, as a place to get more of whatever I think I am lacking at the other four positions.

okay aitb... to me you are kinda going two different directions with this post.

First of all, the idea PFs can make good SFs (especially in D3, where rebounding is such a premium) is a very good one and, in fact, has been around a long long time. And, as such, when looking for SF recruits, it is important not to limit yourself to only those players with "SF" by thier name. instead, decide what qualities you want and search without regard to thier HS position. and yes, in that case lots of folks like to look for PFs with bh (among other things) so that they can be converted to SF or be a swing player.

As for your first sentence... yes, especially in D3, most coaches will dismiss bh for post players. That is, for players who they intend to play exclusively in the post (PF or C).

But, if they have plans to play the kid at SF some (or alot) many (most?) coaches look for some bh.

im going to slip a little tidbit in here about bh at the D3 level..

i think it is no secret that bh becomes more important as you move away from the basket (C<PF<SF<SG<PG!)

and, as was discussed in the last couple of posts, the need for bh at the C and PF spots is almost non-existent at D3.

But, the thing that has continually surprised me over the years is that bh is not even that imporant for SFs (a word of caution... i have run exclusively Motion ofeense in D3. it is possible that this advice would not ring true for other offenses)

right now, for instance, i have a SF with bh="10." and he is actually a true SF. but his ath is 90 and his SP is 70. and he is averaging 2.0 To's per game. is that bad? for me, i can live with it. we are a fairly uptempo team. playing a fairly tough scedule. and he gets alot of looks. he is shooting 52% from the floor AND 53% from FG3 and scoring 16 points per game. While i admit i would like for him to have a higher bh, in D3 you gotta pick your warts. and for me, i think i can live with a low bh SF if there is enogh upside to him in other areas.

and, to take the concept one step further.. i have seen some really good SGs in d3 that have bh in the 30s. i would not have thought that possible until seeing it. again, maybe this is a function of the motion offense which in real life involves very little dribbling and quite alot of pass and cut?

hope that makes sense

Quote: Originally posted by oldave on 11/18/2009im going to slip a little tidbit in here about bh at the D3 level..

i think it is no secret that bh becomes more important as you move away from the basket (C<PF<SF<SG<PG!)

and, as was discussed in the last couple of posts, the need for bh at the C and PF spots is almost non-existent at D3.

But, the thing that has continually surprised me over the years is that bh is not even that imporant for SFs (a word of caution... i have run exclusively Motion ofeense in D3. it is possible that this advice would not ring true for other offenses)

right now, for instance, i have a SF with bh="10." and he is actually a true SF. but his ath is 90 and his SP is 70. and he is averaging 2.0 To's per game. is that bad? for me, i can live with it. we are a fairly uptempo team. playing a fairly tough scedule. and he gets alot of looks. he is shooting 52% from the floor AND 53% from FG3 and scoring 16 points per game. While i admit i would like for him to have a higher bh, in D3 you gotta pick your warts. and for me, i think i can live with a low bh SF if there is enogh upside to him in other areas.

and, to take the concept one step further.. i have seen some really good SGs in d3 that have bh in the 30s. i would not have thought that possible until seeing it. again, maybe this is a function of the motion offense which in real life involves very little dribbling and quite alot of pass and cut?

hope that makes sense

good advice.

to re-iterate the concept that there are a million ways to win, i actually would say bh is one of the most important categories for a sf playing a motion offense, in many situations at least (kind of depends on the type of sf). the team of mine that most outperformed their talent was a d1 motion team, that differentiated themselves with a sf who had like 99spd/bh, among other qualities. but those are what i keyed on as making the team special... the spd bh combo at the 1-3. you never really know what made a team good though, so who knows how important it really was?

also, i'd say the bh gets better as you move away from the basket is mostly right, but not completely. its more of a curve peaking at the 2 IMO.

I've always thought that passing was more important than bh for bigs/sf, and I thought that bh was more important for a 1 than a 2...how mistaken is that?

Gilley,

goodstuff.

not sure if there are a million ways to win, but definitely several hundred thousand. and thats a good thing. advice to NewGuy: "when the oldfellers give you advice... allways take it with a grain of salt. and allways chew it up real good and digest it before spitting it back out. there are very few absolutes and a million shades of grey." (I am not stoned or drunk, i swear)

my thoughts were specifically directed toward D3. my thoughts on this issue (bh for SF and bigs) are probably not that different from yours with regards to D1 strategy.

as for my superstud SF with 10 bh. it probably be argued that a more "normal" starSF would be just as effective in the long run. by normal-star, i mean good but not great...not as athletic or quick as my guy, but better bh and pass. then maybe you are talking about a player that only scores 9 or 10 points per game, but rebounds better and doesnt have very many turnovers. BUT................. there were no "normal starSFs" around when i found Chuckie Western. i couldnt find any good SFs and didnt even see many decent ones. So i took a flyer on a SF with bad bh and passing skills not much better, just for kicks. and im telling you, i could have done alot worse. Kind of a Moneyball-esque story.

and lastly, regarding the "ballhandling curve", i really was only trying to state the obvious (that as you go CtoPFtoSFtoSGtoPG you have an increased need for BH) I wasnt trying to suggest that there was a linear relationship or anything like that. and of course i spent the next hour trying to see if i could create a formula where x="position" (1=PG, 2="SG,etc)" and y="BH" necesarry for HD-d3. but .. no luck. maybe something like y="60/x..." but thats not quite right, ... ... i swear to god im going to figure this out if it takes me all night!!!!

On the other hand, this player:

Athleticism 52
Speed 53
Rebounding 22
Defense 20
Shot Blocking 35
Low-post 31
Perimeter 40
Ball Handling 57
Passing 62
Stamina 89

Has done rather well playing small forward for me. 8.5 pts and nearly 56% shooting, including 50% from three, 2.5 rebounds and 2.1 assists, almost a steal and a block a game as well in about twenty minutes. (Considering he was playing with two seventy four rebounding posts)

Quote: Originally posted by dacj501 on 11/18/2009I've always thought that passing was more important than bh for bigs/sf, and I thought that bh was more important for a 1 than a 2...how mistaken is that?

this stuff definitely depends on your system. not just your offense and defense, but the system on top of it.

in general, i would agree, passing is more important for bigs. nobody knows for sure, but my thinking is, you don't really dribble much when you are 2 feet from the basket. plus, a lot of the value of bh for guards is that it gets them better looks, making them more effective scorers. i don't imagine that translates to bigs. it doesn't help that their assist numbers are near meaningless either :(

as far as bh being more important for a 1 than a 2... well, this is where your system is pretty important. the relative importance can change fairly significantly from team to team, i would say (some would disagree). for example, say your team sucks, except your pg is awesome, and he can shoot. well, then i would definitely take bh at the 1 than the 2. or, if your 2 and 3 are great ball handlers/passers, and your 1 isn't a good shooter, then he isn't going to be the only one taking up the pg duties and your 2 is likely getting more touches. in that case, i'd take bh at the 2 over the 1. i guess i'd say a lot of it comes down to how much those players are touching the ball. anyways, if you switch your 1 and 2, it usually doesn't make a world of difference (man defense with severe difference in defensive quality exempted). so, i don't know i would think of things too much in terms of what spot a guy is at, rather, what role he is filling.