Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: SSOL: Reality and Abberation

  1. #1
    Veteran TunerAddict's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    2,183
    Rep Power
    9

    Default SSOL: Reality and Abberation

    The "SSOL" style offense does not seem to be quite understood on these boards. Quite frequently we see the same reiterated rhetoric over and over again as to what this system entails, however, it is rarely correct.

    Common misconceptions:

    1)SSOL is against defense

    FALSE

    SSOL has nothing to do with defense. Its an offensive philosophy. Defense is not dictated by an offensive gameplan.

    Defense actually helps the system as it allows for more fastbreaks coming off turnovers or missed shots.

    2) SSOL required lots of threes and jumpshots

    FALSE

    SSOL has nothing to do with either. It has to to with open shots, whether they are threes, jumpshots from 15 ft away, layups, or dunks. Anything goes.

    3) SSOL cannot win Championships

    False

    Once again, this is assuming that this team doesn't play defense. This is untrue as defense is not equated to an offensive gameplan.

    Mike was EXTREMELY succesful for years with this in Phoenix. Why didn't they win championships?

    Winning is hard. How many teams had amazing years and never won? The Pistons and Spurs were for years the best defensive teams in the league and they didn't go winning every year. They won a lot, and got a few ships' between them, but they were far from dominating year in and year out simply because of their philosophies. And their general success can be attributed to many things besides defense, mainly their multiple all star lineups, and great team chemistry.

    So what is SSOL?

    Simple. Seven seconds into the shot clock the best shot should have been taken.

    But why?

    Simple yet again. When a team is coming back to play defense, the first seven seconds of the shotclock are the ones where they are most vulnerable to transition. This means they cannot operate at the fullest of their defensive potential. By pushing and getting the best shot they can, the offensive team is getting a quality shot against a team that is not defending to its best. The defending team still has men coming back from offense, guys looking for their man, etc...

    What about the mismatches?

    Once again, running small lineups help this system. When you're quicker then your opponent, you're able to beat them down the floor, and by doing so, are able to get better shots either from men being out of position on defense or an actual number advantage, creating 5 on 4s or 4 on 3s as trailing players fail to get back.

    And there you go. A quick insight to what the SSOL system really is.

    Willing to explain any questions you may have, and I offer my perspective on any problem you may find either with my explanation or your own interpretation.

    HOWEVER

    Stay positive and respectful. I will not respond to people who are being inconsiderate or disrespectful to anyone else.

    P.S.

    I do not see the Knicks actually using this offense most of the time.

  2. #2
    12th man
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Far far away from the orgy that consist of clyde, 8's, rady, smokes and rono
    Posts
    11,260
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Good post...but how can we ever make this offense works when our PG is slower than our PF?

  3. #3
    Superstar Scribbles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    607
    Rep Power
    7

    Default

    What you failed to realize is that while the SSOL strategy is an offensive layout, it translates and slides into the defense transition.

    It takes a lot of energy and psychological smarts from the players to go about the offense as swift as they can to get an open score...that by the time they're back on Defense, they're already thinking ahead of time what they're gonna do going back down the court on offense. Not to mention they're more sluggish on the defensive end to conserve the energy to gun it back down on offense.

    It's nowhere NEAR an equal balance on defense vs. offense as far as intensity.

  4. #4
    Veteran TunerAddict's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    2,183
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Originally Posted by metrocard
    Good post...but how can we ever make this offense works when our PG is slower than our PF?
    There in lies the problem...

  5. #5
    Veteran LJ4ptplay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Ft. Collins, CO
    Posts
    2,950
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    Nicely done Tuner...nicely done.

    One thing you didn't mention is that the system also relies heavily on pick and rolls and penetrate and dish.
    Last edited by LJ4ptplay; Nov 07, 2009 at 21:20.

  6. #6
    Veteran TunerAddict's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    2,183
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Originally Posted by LJ4ptplay
    Nicely done Tuner...nicely done.

    One thing you didn't mention is that the system also relies heavily on pick and rolls and penetrate and dish.
    True.

    I think a misconception is that you really need a Nash type pointguard. You really don't.

    If you have an average pointguard, but you have guys that understand the system and don't just chuck, you can be succesful.


    PHX had some selfish chuckers, but Steve Nash really got them better shots, negative their bad style of play.

    Our problem?

    We have neither. We have no decent distributor and we are a team full of isolation players and chuckers. We have the exact opposite personnel that this system needs to be successful.

  7. #7
    Veteran mafra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,381
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    The offense is based on spacing and shooting. It demands a penetrating PG who can break down the defense, and it relies on shooters who can make open shots.

    Most of the time we actually get good looks....

    This is why I'm so amazed as to why Walsh didn't do everything necessary to get coach his PG.... He wanted Curry. He should've had him. AT LEAST somebody to run his offense. Right now he's like an NFl coach with some chump behind center.

    Duhon, Jeffries and Chandler cannot make an open shot, Harrington, N8 and Hughes are too streaky (more cold than hot). right now, you have Lee and Gallinari that can knock down open looks.

    Hill and Douglas are what they are.

    This season rests on 3 things:

    1) Danillo Gallinari becoming a 20 ppg player.
    2) N8, Harrington & Hughes being more hot than cold.
    3) Darko and Curry developing an interior presence on offense.

    We just have to face it that we wont see coach's offense this season.

  8. #8
    TYPE-A Red's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,308
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    Originally Posted by TunerAddict
    The "SSOL" style offense does not seem to be quite understood on these boards. Quite frequently we see the same reiterated rhetoric over and over again as to what this system entails, however, it is rarely correct.

    Common misconceptions:

    SSOL has nothing to do with defense. Its an offensive philosophy. Defense is not dictated by an offensive gameplan.

    Defense actually helps the system as it allows for more fastbreaks coming off turnovers or missed shots.

    2) SSOL required lots of threes and jumpshots

    SSOL has nothing to do with either. It has to to with open shots, whether they are threes, jumpshots from 15 ft away, layups, or dunks. Anything goes.

    3) SSOL cannot win Championships



    Once again, this is assuming that this team doesn't play defense. This is untrue as defense is not equated to an offensive gameplan.

    Mike was EXTREMELY succesful for years with this in Phoenix. Why didn't they win championships?

    Winning is hard. How many teams had amazing years and never won? The Pistons and Spurs were for years the best defensive teams in the league and they didn't go winning every year. They won a lot, and got a few ships' between them, but they were far from dominating year in and year out simply because of their philosophies. And their general success can be attributed to many things besides defense, mainly their multiple all star lineups, and great team chemistry.

    So what is SSOL?

    Simple. Seven seconds into the shot clock the best shot should have been taken.

    But why?

    Simple yet again. When a team is coming back to play defense, the first seven seconds of the shotclock are the ones where they are most vulnerable to transition. This means they cannot operate at the fullest of their defensive potential. By pushing and getting the best shot they can, the offensive team is getting a quality shot against a team that is not defending to its best. The defending team still has men coming back from offense, guys looking for their man, etc...

    What about the mismatches?

    Once again, running small lineups help this system.

    P.S.

    I do not see the Knicks actually using this offense most of the time.
    Good attempt at trying to Justify D'Antoni but upon further examination...

    1. Defense wins games period. A common "misconception" is that a teams Defensive strategy is not dictated by and offensive plan. EVERY COACH will tell you they strategize who gets out on breaks and where during transition based on their Offensive/Defensive philosophy. If they are (or want to be) a good transition team (both ways off>def and def>off) coaches must understand their personal and game plan the "Transition" accordingly. If you notice Good Coaches Plan where players are at on the floor (spacing) to maximize rebounds (a defensive stat) and facilitate the break. They plan to orchestrate transition and the break Specifically, one side compliments the other.

    D'Antoni and all who agree fail to realize the system does not allow them to maximize rebounding opportunities.

    2. "Requires Lots of Jumpers and Threes"
    I'm not sure where you got this from but...

    That word "Require" is the exaggerator. You are confusing "Open" shots with "Low %" shots.

    Bottom line philosophically yes taking open shots is good in theory, realistically shots closer to the rim have a higher percentage of going in. Under this coach our fg% is extremely low and our shot selection is poor! Whether you choose to attribute this to SSOL or NOT is besides the point. The point is WHAT IS THE RAMIFICATION OR REACTION BY THE COACH WHEN PLAYERS ARE CONSISTENTLY SHOOTING "LOW %" SHOTS?

    3. SSOL Cannot win Champ'?
    "Once again, this is assuming that this team doesn't play defense. This is untrue as defense is not equated to an offensive gameplan."

    Has anyone won using SSOL? You're assuming by some miracle we will gather players with enough stamina to hoist up "open" shots at record pace and still maintain energy to be effective defensively even though COACH is using a minimal (9) man rotation and promotes poor spacing for team-wide rebounding opportunities. A "game plan is all around" one might not equate
    1 to the other but, Overall performance is the name of the game.

    4. Small Line-ups?

    There are times to use them, and obviously time not to. Match-ups (and the exploitation of mismatches) are almost everything in sports. When you neglect to address Fundamentals (team rebounding / Defense / Good shot selection / proper spacing / flow and ball movement / transition) by playing players out of position- good coaches will realize this and expose your weakness.

    5. "I do not see the Knicks actually using this offense most of the time."


    Oh so we hired D'Antoni to administer his NEW philosophy?SMH...
    What you don't see is an offense thats effective and consistent period. What I see is someone trying desperately to justify it.



    Originally Posted by Scribbles
    What you failed to realize is that while the SSOL strategy is an offensive layout, it translates and slides into the defense transition.

    It takes a lot of energy and psychological smarts from the players to go about the offense as swift as they can to get an open score...that by the time they're back on Defense, they're already thinking ahead of time what they're gonna do going back down the court on offense. Not to mention they're more sluggish on the defensive end to conserve the energy to gun it back down on offense.

    It's nowhere NEAR an equal balance on defense vs. offense as far as intensity.
    Defense wins! This Coach we pay millions of dollars admittedly said "He Is Making An Effort To Emphasize Defense"-

    Problem is he decided to do so IN HIS 2ND YEAR!! After he has been coaching for how long? *please stop jerking me off!!!

    Had he used a more practical approach maybe we would of drafted and/or traded for better players by now. Maybe we can actually compete after next year? Who knows? We Did Get "The Best Shooter Ever" though....

    Originally Posted by LJ4ptplay
    Nicely done Tuner...nicely done.

    One thing you didn't mention is that the system also relies heavily on pick and rolls and penetrate and dish.
    Get this man a cup cake!!

    The author who is an advocate for the famed SSOL forgot to mention the basics. SMH...

    And of course by using the P&R (and dishing) D'Antoni has reinvented the wheel! SMH...

    Please you gotta get better than that.


    Originally Posted by TunerAddict
    True.

    I think a misconception is that you really need a Nash type pointguard. You really don't.

    If you have an average pointguard, but you have guys that understand the system and don't just chuck, you can be succesful.


    PHX had some selfish chuckers, but Steve Nash really got them better shots, negative their bad style of play.

    Our problem?

    We have neither. We have no decent distributor and we are a team full of isolation players and chuckers. We have the exact opposite personnel that this system needs to be successful.
    Wow lots of contradictions in this one...

    First you say it's a misconception you "need a Nash type" pg then you use Nash in an example for how he makes it better?

    First you say "an avg" point will do...

    but failed to realize
    1. stats wise Duhon is Average
    2. we had Marbury
    3. we've got Nate "THE GREAT" Robinson
    4. we've had UMPTEEN opportunities to acquire as you say [an only needed] Average point (if you dont think Duhon is) and we failed under D'Antoni's watch. His system, his demands, his stubbornness.

    Originally Posted by mafra
    The offense is based on spacing and shooting. It demands a penetrating PG who can break down the defense, and it relies on shooters who can make open shots.

    Most of the time we actually get good looks....

    This is why I'm so amazed as to why Walsh didn't do everything necessary to get coach his PG....

    We just have to face it that we wont see coach's offense this season.
    According to Mafra "it demands a penetrating PG"...

    I guess thats a debate in and of itself. But simply if a PG is needed we had ample opportunities.

    Bottom line is whether the SSOL offense works or not the following doesn't:

    Not Playing Defense

    No Discipline

    Shooting poor % shots

    Poor spacing

    Faulty matchups

    Playing out of position

    Turnovers

    Not being able to finish on the break

    I could go on and on but I think you get my drift.

    One...

  9. #9
    Veteran TunerAddict's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    2,183
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Originally Posted by Red
    Good attempt at trying to Justify D'Antoni but upon further examination...

    1. Defense wins games period. A common "misconception" is that a teams Defensive strategy is not dictated by and offensive plan. EVERY COACH will tell you they strategize who gets out on breaks and where during transition based on their Offensive/Defensive philosophy. If they are (or want to be) a good transition team (both ways off>def and def>off) coaches must understand their personal and game plan the "Transition" accordingly. If you notice Good Coaches Plan where players are at on the floor (spacing) to maximize rebounds (a defensive stat) and facilitate the break. They plan to orchestrate transition and the break Specifically, one side compliments the other.

    D'Antoni and all who agree fail to realize the system does not allow them to maximize rebounding opportunities.

    2. "Requires Lots of Jumpers and Threes"
    I'm not sure where you got this from but...

    That word "Require" is the exaggerator. You are confusing "Open" shots with "Low %" shots.

    Bottom line philosophically yes taking open shots is good in theory, realistically shots closer to the rim have a higher percentage of going in. Under this coach our fg% is extremely low and our shot selection is poor! Whether you choose to attribute this to SSOL or NOT is besides the point. The point is WHAT IS THE RAMIFICATION OR REACTION BY THE COACH WHEN PLAYERS ARE CONSISTENTLY SHOOTING "LOW %" SHOTS?

    3. SSOL Cannot win Champ'?
    "Once again, this is assuming that this team doesn't play defense. This is untrue as defense is not equated to an offensive gameplan."

    Has anyone won using SSOL? You're assuming by some miracle we will gather players with enough stamina to hoist up "open" shots at record pace and still maintain energy to be effective defensively even though COACH is using a minimal (9) man rotation and promotes poor spacing for team-wide rebounding opportunities. A "game plan is all around" one might not equate
    1 to the other but, Overall performance is the name of the game.

    4. Small Line-ups?

    There are times to use them, and obviously time not to. Match-ups (and the exploitation of mismatches) are almost everything in sports. When you neglect to address Fundamentals (team rebounding / Defense / Good shot selection / proper spacing / flow and ball movement / transition) by playing players out of position- good coaches will realize this and expose your weakness.

    5. "I do not see the Knicks actually using this offense most of the time."


    Oh so we hired D'Antoni to administer his NEW philosophy?SMH...
    What you don't see is an offense thats effective and consistent period. What I see is someone trying desperately to justify it.





    Defense wins! This Coach we pay millions of dollars admittedly said "He Is Making An Effort To Emphasize Defense"-

    Problem is he decided to do so IN HIS 2ND YEAR!! After he has been coaching for how long? *please stop jerking me off!!!

    Had he used a more practical approach maybe we would of drafted and/or traded for better players by now. Maybe we can actually compete after next year? Who knows? We Did Get "The Best Shooter Ever" though....



    Get this man a cup cake!!

    The author who is an advocate for the famed SSOL forgot to mention the basics. SMH...

    And of course by using the P&R (and dishing) D'Antoni has reinvented the wheel! SMH...

    Please you gotta get better than that.




    Wow lots of contradictions in this one...

    First you say it's a misconception you "need a Nash type" pg then you use Nash in an example for how he makes it better?

    First you say "an avg" point will do...

    but failed to realize
    1. stats wise Duhon is Average
    2. we had Marbury
    3. we've got Nate "THE GREAT" Robinson
    4. we've had UMPTEEN opportunities to acquire as you say [an only needed] Average point (if you dont think Duhon is) and we failed under D'Antoni's watch. His system, his demands, his stubbornness.



    According to Mafra "it demands a penetrating PG"...

    I guess thats a debate in and of itself. But simply if a PG is needed we had ample opportunities.

    Bottom line is whether the SSOL offense works or not the following doesn't:

    Not Playing Defense

    No Discipline

    Shooting poor % shots

    Poor spacing

    Faulty matchups

    Playing out of position

    Turnovers

    Not being able to finish on the break

    I could go on and on but I think you get my drift.

    One...
    Good job picking and choosing what you'd talk about while totally ignoring other things.

    You hate for a person outweighs your ability to reason in this area.

  10. #10
    Veteran TunerAddict's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    2,183
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Reserved for responses when I have the time

  11. #11
    The One and Only KING~POETIQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Queens the Foundation
    Posts
    1,807
    Rep Power
    8

    Default

    Red, congratulations on murdering the thread starter and his weak ass thread with your magnificent post.



    Red left tuner paralyzed, his only comeback was this bull****:


    Originally Posted by TunerAddict
    Good job picking and choosing what you'd talk about while totally ignoring other things.

    You hate for a person outweighs your ability to reason in this area.


    This thread is a bitch move by a guy(tuner) who was afraid to go up against Me and Red in the "Fire d'antoni!" thread.



    Although I disagree with Lj4ptplay's point of view, I still commend him for having the balls to discuss the topic with the two of us.



    Peace out and **** this thread.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    50
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    SSOL works in that it gets our team very good looks, but our team is just a horrible shooting team outside of Gallinari and Hughes to some extent. Gallinari and Lee (when he plays PF) are the only guys who are tailor-made for this system, we need new personnel. They actually are getting good looks and the ball movement is good, it is just that nobody can hit a shot.

  13. #13
    Veteran Paul1355's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    5,497
    Rep Power
    14

    Default 7 Second offense doesn't work with the Knicks

    Turner, thanks for summing up this failed offensive plan. I didn't quite understand the positives of chucking up shots whenever you got the chance. Excuse my sarcasm I do have a serious question.

    I think mike D is using a system that works with all stars who can feed each other and hit shots on a consistent basis. The problem is that we don't have lethal shooters like Steve Nash, leandro barbosa, Shawn Marion. We don't have an inside presence like Amare to have the defense floud the middle to leave guys open on the outside.

    Do you agree Turner? That this style just clearly does not work with these players because of what I said and anything you can add.

    Only Gallinari and a red hot Harrington can really benefit from this because they can hit the outside shot effectively if they get into a groove.

  14. #14
    The One and Only KING~POETIQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Queens the Foundation
    Posts
    1,807
    Rep Power
    8

    Default

    Originally Posted by SLY1984
    Red, congratulations on murdering the thread starter and his weak ass thread with your magnificent post.



    Red left tuner paralyzed, his only comeback was this bull****:






    This thread is a bitch move by a guy(tuner) who was afraid to go up against Me and Red in the "Fire d'antoni!" thread.



    Although I disagree with Lj4ptplay's point of view, I still commend him for having the balls to discuss the topic with the two of us.



    Peace out and **** this thread.




    "...motha****as take dirt naps, I'm all that and a dime sack, where the paper at?"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •