The Biggest Change to Fare Better in FIBA Competitions
Why the 2023 World Cup Should Not Change Opinions on JJJ and Others
After the game against Germany, many questioned Jaren Jackson Jr.’s (JJJ) Defensive Player of the Year award. FIBA is not the NBA. The skills and traits that make him a great NBA defender are less valuable in FIBA, and his weaknesses are more easily exploited.
On almost any other top FIBA team, national teams or EuroLeague, JJJ plays as a forward, not the center or biggest player. Franz Wagner played as a small forward for Germany, whereas USA downsized and often played Paolo Banchero as a center, despite being roughly the same size and similar (though far from identical) skill sets. Many teams would employ Banchero as a small forward because the limited spacing and zone defenses reduce the need for speed and quickness in open space and instead increase the importance of strength and playing in smaller areas.
In the NBA, and because of the NBA’s influence most of American basketball, teams tend to downsize to improve defense or to compensate for poor defense with increased scoring and/or pace. With the increased space and lack of emphasis on post play and offensive rebounding, downsizing makes sense strategically.
Golden State famously terrorized opponents with its “Death Lineup”, shifting Draymond Green to center instead of (originally) Andrew Bogut. Green-Harrison Barnes-Andre Igoudala-Klay Thompson-Steph Curry often destroyed teams, winning small segments of the game by a large margin. The downshifting certainly played a role, but it was aided by three top defensive players, two of whom are generational defenders. This strategy does not work with every team, although it is accepted widely.
Jackson has a similar, though different, effect as Green when his team downsizes to play smaller and faster. He covers ground more quickly than Steven Adams, which makes him a more valuable off-ball defender with the NBA spacing. He also holds his own on switches when defending smaller players, and he forces opposing centers to the three-point line offensively, creating more space for dynamic Ja Morant drives.
In a FIBA competition, Adams is a more effective defender. He does not have to cover as much ground and can stay closer to the basket. His size and physicality take up more space near the basket, and he is a better rebounder. Jackson’s defense is optimized for NBA rules; Adams is optimized for FIBA rules.
In FIBA, Jackson should play alongside a player such as Adams rather than downsizing and employing Jackson as the primary center with even smaller options (Bobby Portis, Paolo Banchero) as the primary backups. The World Cup should not do anything to tarnish Jackson’s reputation as a defender, and instead should demonstrate the need to play bigger lineups in future FIBA competitions.
Watch Real Madrid and Edy Tavares.
Tavares is first or second in EuroLeague Defensive Player of the Year every season, and his closest NBA comparison, off-hand, is Boban Marjanović. Boban often is played off the court in the NBA when forced to defend in space, and he has never received so much as a vote for NBA Defensive Player of the Year. However, when a 7’3 defender can patrol the three-second area, he can dominate. The rules emphasize different skill sets, and Tavares and Marjanović are optimized for FIBA, whereas Green and JJJ are optimized for the NBA. Just watch some Boban highlights from EuroLeague:
In my experience, when my teams have struggled defensively in FIBA, we upsize, not downsize, whereas the opposite is often true in NFHS/NCAA games. My biggest problem last season was our lack of options to upsize; our starting lineup was nearly as big as we could play. I upsized by playing our backup and starting center together, but size-wise, both were forwards. We lacked real options to play a big lineup to improve our defense. In the previous season, we upsized and played three post players to improve our defense and rebounding. Taking up space with size, not covering more distance with speed, tends to result in better defense in FIBA competitions, whereas the opposite often is true in the NBA. Upsizing with Kessler and Jackson playing together likely would have been the best approach to improve USAB’s defense and rebounding.
On the other side of the size spectrum, players such as Facundo Campazzo and Miloš Teodosić are among the best point guards in Europe, but struggled to replicate their success in the NBA because the games reward and punish different skill sets. Campazzo and Teodosić amaze with their wizardry, finding passes and passing angles where none seems obvious.
Finding passes in these tight windows is needed less in the NBA because there is more space, and teams favor stationary catches as opposed to a lot of movement and cutting. The NBA rewards quickness, speed and explosiveness much more because of the space available to those who can use it, and consequently punishes players who may be a step slower than their opposition.
The NBA rewards speedy point guards such as Morant and D’Aaron Fox or explosive point guards such as Russell Westbrook much more than crafty, great passing point guards such as Tyrese Halliburton. Teams cannot exploit Campazzo and Teodosić nearly as much in FIBA because they can use their hands more and play more physically to compensate for weaknesses in foot speed and/or height.
Latvia’s Artūrs Žagars had a great tournament, and now apparently has NBA interest, but his FIBA success is unlikely to translate to the same NBA success, whereas a player such as Jalen Brunson is likely to perform much better in the NBA next season than he did for USAB this summer because of his isolation shot creation.
The two biggest lessons for USAB and coaches at all levels to take from the 2023 FIBA World Cup are: (1) team building’s (not collecting stars) importance for success at the highest levels; and (2) players need more than shot-making to be successful. I fear, instead, people will expect the A-team to win through sheer talent next summer (LeBron James already recruiting the Klutch All-Stars plus Steph and KD), and shot-making and isolation play will be emphasized to an even greater extent, especially as it seems the more points one scored, the more one escaped blame, regardless of defense, efficiency, passing, and more.
Coaches preach defense and rebounding, but when I sent college coaches film of a great defender and rebounder, the first questions were, “How’s his shot and how tall is he?” He shot close to 90% from the free-throw line. I sent film of him defending a 7’0, 270 30-year-old, but they worried he was closer to 6’7 than 6’9. This is the same reasoning that allowed Draymond Green to fall to the second round.
Then, I watched a conference’s coaches ignore the conference Defensive Player of the Year who also was the third-leading scorer while shooting over 60% from the field against regular double teams on the regular-season champion to name the conference’s leading scorer from the third place team as the MVP.
Coaches preach defense, rebounding, and winning, but their actions constantly reward individual scoring. Should aspiring players listen to the message or learn from their actions?
Individual training begets individual players. More and more practice time is devoted to individual drills and individual fundamentals because of a complete misunderstanding of skills and collective play. We use shooting machines, eliminating players even passing to each other in simple shooting drills, and celebrate private coaches. Then, we question players’ passing skills. The result is impressive shooting and the shotmaking: USAB shot 58-48-96 and scored 111 points against Germany.
Of course, USAB lost. USAB struggled defensively, struggled to rebound, and struggled to put pressure on the opponent’s defense. They scored, and often scored efficiently, but again that was due to individual talent and shotmaking. They shot this well despite often choosing difficult shots instead of moving the ball. Many possessions violated Gregg Popovich’s “turn down a good shot to get a great shot” axiom, and many possessions never turned a small advantage into a big advantage. They struggled to create easy shots and did not make opponents work on defense. I fear the lesson learned is to double-down on shotmaking and isolations as opposed to seeking out easier shots and improving defensive execution.
The solution to improving basketball in the United States (if indeed that is something people believe is necessary) is not more individual training or shooting machine repetitions. Despite the prevalent opinion, the United States does not lack individual fundamentals, especially as required by the NBA/NCAA game. The United States has most of the best shooters and scorers. USAB was exposed on the defensive end, which used to be USAB’s strength. Most USAB teams rely on defensive pressure to overwhelm opponents, but at the senior level, playing against EuroLeague and NBA players, players can handle the pressure, and USAB did not have the defenders to apply optimal pressure, either on the ball or on the back line to protect the rim.
The dominant game style in the USA is dribble penetration, possibly with a high-ball screen, with three or four players spotting up. These stationary players reduce the game’s complexity for the ball-handler, which affords a faster drive. We value reducing turnovers and mistakes more than expanding new opportunities and searching for better shots. If I know exactly where my four teammates will be, and I know they are stationary and spaced, I can drive as fast as possible to the rim and pass to an open player if necessary, especially because most defenses play similarly. When players cut, or we use different formations and alignments, I may have to slow down my drive to account for the other nine players. When defenses employ different strategies, I may have to slow down, which is one reason for zone’s effectiveness in the NBA despite the restrictions in the three-second area. The NBA emphasizes speed, and making easy reads, whereas FIBA rules require more precision and creativity because of the reduced space and increased physicality.
It is not difficult to identify the most necessary change if USAB wants to win FIBA championships consistently (which, to be fair, it does already for the most part at most levels, men and women): Force AAU, NFHS, and NCAA to adopt FIBA rules. Of course, this requires a powerful Federation to lead. One single change would improve USAB’s fortunes in FIBA competitions, and likely make USAB almost unbeatable. This change would not only prepare players for the FIBA game, but likely result in better players overall due to the shot clock (NFHS, AAU) and shorter shot clock (NCAA) among other rule changes. A refereeing change to call first-step travels tighter would lead to improved footwork over time. A change to allow more contact on drivers hopefully would lead to more passing and ball movement, and more strategic or tactical play. The changes would make the game ugly at most levels initially, as players adapt to the changes, but in the long run, adopting FIBA rules at all levels likely would produce more skilled, more intelligent, more creative players.