"We're going to start preparing them for the playoffs tomorrow to prepare for the games that are coming." LeBron said.
[Playoff-level preparation] — Before the Timberwolves, LeBron specifically emphasized this word.
As the most important game of the NBA year, compared with the regular season, in addition to the level of physical confrontation and the concentration of players, the most important difference between the playoffs is the adequacy of [preparation] - in a more familiar phrase:
Only by knowing oneself and knowing the other can you win a hundred battles.
It's an unknown war – no sweat, no muscle clashes, not even that round ball, but it's the key to winning the game.
It's a shame that we can't watch what's happening in the video room, but we can also talk about the upcoming series between the Lakers and Grizzlies from the perspective of a coach.
data analysis
First, the actual gap between the Lakers and Grizzlies is not as big as their record gap. (2nd West and 7th West)
We all know that the Lakers are a brand new team after the trade deadline.
After All-Star, the Lakers are 16-7 and second in the league with a 69.6% win rate; The Grizzlies are 16-9 and 4th in the league with a 64 percent winning percentage.
That is, based on the record after the trade deadline, the Grizzlies and Lakers are two teams of equal strength.
Next, let's take a look at the offensive and defensive performance of the two teams:
After All-Star, the Lakers are 14th in the league in offensive efficiency and 4th in the league in defensive efficiency; The Grizzlies are 12th in the league in offensive efficiency and 9th in the league in defensive efficiency.
However, there is another change here, narrowing the scope to 8 games after LeBron's return at the end of the season, the Lakers' offensive and defensive efficiency has become: 3rd in the offensive efficiency league and 13th in the defensive efficiency league - the offensive and defensive rankings have been reversed, but the net win score has risen from 6th to 3rd. The Grizzlies' last ten games haven't changed much.
In general, both teams are considered "balanced offensive and defensive" teams, and there is no serious "bias".
Next, let's talk about the characteristics of the two teams.
peculiarity
In terms of roster structure, the Grizzlies and Lakers are both teams with larger frontcourt sizes - the Grizzlies have 3J, Tillman, and Dillon in the frontcourt; And the Lakers' front court is AD, Vanderbilt, LeBron. And they also have some small-sized backcourts - Morant and Tyus Jones of the Grizzlies; Russell and Schroder of the Lakers.
In terms of team building philosophy, the Lakers and Grizzlies are close in their thinking - to retain a small size, develop a backcourt with strong offensive ability, and rely on the size advantage of the front court to protect it. (Of course, the way is different)
Then the two teams also had some injuries caused by depth in the front court - the Grizzlies damaged Adams and Clark; The Lakers' Bamba also missed run-in time due to injuries and fell out of the rotation. (This partly narrows the 'depth' gap between the two teams)
So under the same lineup structure, what are the common characteristics and differences between the two teams?
Joint points:
First, both the Lakers and Grizzlies are very rebounding teams — the Grizzlies are second in the rebounding league this season, while the Lakers are fourth in the league after the trade deadline. (Breaking Adams has allowed the Grizzlies' rebounding pressure to slip a bit)
Second, both teams have strong interior killing ability - the Grizzlies are the number one inside scoring team this season, and the Lakers are basically in the top five to top three inside scoring with James.
Then, both teams excelled at fast-breaking and defensive counter-attacks — the Grizzlies scored second in the league and the Lakers scored fourth. (The Grizzlies are Morant, Bane, Dillon, and the Lakers are James)
Both teams' defensive strengths are in the interior rim — 3J is first in the league in blocks, while Davis is fifth. (However, the two teams are very different in the way they guard the frame, as will be said below)
Differences:
Frame guarding method.
The Lakers' defensive system is inherited from the Bucks, adopting a center Drop (sinking/"squatting") strategy, allowing Davis to stay more inside to achieve the purpose of frame protection and deterrence (but in fact, Davis does not try to interfere with the opponent's shooting every time, which is the characteristic of "Drop" defense), which is reflected in the data - the Lakers limit opponents to the 8th fewest inside shots in the league, but in fact, the opponent's shooting percentage in the box is not low (17th).
The Grizzlies' defensive system is somewhat like the 20-year-old Lakers, who like to put two interior linemen on the court, let 3J be responsible for sweeping and shrinking the frame - they do not "forbid" the opposite offensive frame, but are happy to see the opponent come in and challenge Jalen Jackson Jr. - reflected in the data, the Grizzlies opponent has the 12th most shots at the basket, but the Grizzlies limit the inside shooting percentage is the first in the league.
The usage of 3J and AD is different, except that the way of the frame also affects the other side.
Ability to copy.
From KG in the Green Army, to Bosh in the Heat, to Davis in the 2020 season, and now to the Grizzlies — when you have a "Spider-Man" No. 4 who can sweep on the weak side, which often means that the opponent has to be more careful when passing to the weak side, and it also means more steals and interceptions occur - the above four teams have never been lower than the top five in the league. And this Grizzlies team is one of the best: In the past two seasons, the Grizzlies have been first and second in steals.
Not only can 3J often intercept opponents' passes on the weak side, but the Grizzlies do have many players with a pair of fast hands - from Morant, Bane, Dillon who starts, to Jones and Conchar on the bench, this Grizzlies are simply a "bandit army".
This is very dangerous for the Lakers - the Lakers are a team that likes to pass widely to the weak side, and they also have "recruits" like Reeves and Beasley, and if they can't control live ball mistakes, then another major difference between the two teams will pose a major threat to the Lakers.
Convert defense.
Both the Lakers and Grizzlies have great conversion offense, but there is a big gap between the two teams in switching defense — even after the trade deadline, the Lakers still have the third-highest fast-break points in the league, and the Grizzlies have been able to control fast-break in a reasonable range (16) throughout the season.
This is a very bad statistic for the Lakers - it means that although both teams are also good at counterattacking, if the Lakers do not do those details well (concentration, mistakes), the chances of being carried away by the opponent's wave are much greater than the chance of their own wave taking away the opponent.
The above are some of the characteristics and disadvantages of the two teams from the data level and "usually". (Usually, this refers to the characteristics and strengths and weaknesses of most teams)
Next, let's analyze the lineups and alignment possibilities of the two teams in a more targeted manner.
Lineup and alignment analysis
Let's start with grizzly bears.
For now, after losing Adams and Clark, the Grizzlies have two possible starters:
Morant, Bane, Dillon, 3J, Tillman.
Morant, Bane, Kennard, Dillon, 3J.
Morant, Bane, and Dillon are most likely unchanged, the difference is that Tillman or Kennard are the same.
But after weighing it up, I think it's more likely that the Grizzlies will take the first set of starters.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of the Grizzlies' two sets of starters:
The advantage of the first set of starters is that 3J does not have to go to Davis: Jackson against Vanderbilt, which can better play Jackson's DPOY-level defense and frame protection advantages, while reducing the possibility of 3J getting into foul trouble too early. (Tillman's role as a solid cover is also needed by the Grizzlies' offensive system.)
The downside is that this set of alignment will also be more beneficial to the Lakers' defense - AD can go to Tillman to stay at the basket, Vanderbilt 3J can switch defenses after the Grizzlies' 1-4 block, which can minimize some Morant's breakthrough kills to the Lakers' backcourt. (Morant is averaging 20 breakaways per game this season, second in the league, and in fact, neither Russell nor Reeves can start with him.)
The advantage of the second set of starters is that the Lakers are almost not right on the defensive end - all 5 people are very capable of shooting (not even those who can 'shoot and try' like a sledgehammer), Davis is not suitable for anyone, and as long as Davis is not in the box, the Grizzlies can easily beat the Lakers inside into a sieve with breakthroughs and open cuts.
The disadvantage is that they are not on the defensive end and they are not as good as the Lakers - 3J's foul problem is a big problem for the Grizzlies, whether it is the regular season or last year's playoffs, and he is a "single tower" and directly against Davis, the possibility of getting into foul trouble will be greatly increased, and Kennard entering the starting lineup also means that the Grizzlies have an additional counterpoint weakness and loopholes for LeBron to "name".
Weighing the two, I still think the first set of starters is more beneficial to the Grizzlies:
This lineup is more regular, the Grizzlies have better chemistry (being able to run more of their familiar tactics), and as we said above, the strength of the two teams is actually close, and even the Grizzlies have a slight advantage, in this case, they don't need to risk entering the rhythm of the opposite, and risk their core players getting into trouble.
And when is the second set of lineups likely to emerge — when the Grizzlies are trailing by more than 15 points and need to chase points quickly. (In this case, they may also have Aldama +3J form a dual-space frontcourt.) ）
Let's talk about the Lakers.
The initial starter on the Lakers' side is likely to remain unchanged (cephalosporin everyone understands):
Russell, Reeves, James, Vanderbilt, Davis
My optimal alignment concept for this lineup is as follows:
Davis vs. Tillman, Vanderbilt vs. 3J, James vs. Dillon, Reeves vs. Morant, Russell vs. Bane.
I think this set of counterpoints should be recognized - unless you want to relive the fact that Davis was pulled out and the inside line was bludden...
But even so, I wasn't very happy with this set of alignments.
First of all, this lineup can't match the Grizzlies' outside double on the defensive.
Russell can't do it to Morant, firstly, because Russell can't keep up with him, and secondly, his words to Morant are equivalent to making Vanderbilt change defenses in 1-4 blocks The advantage of changing defenses no longer exists - Reeves has the hope of interfering with 3J and other thick eyebrows to clamp down, Russell changing to 3J is a bit self-defeating.
But is Russell the right fit for Bane? It's not appropriate — last year the Timberwolves had Russell vs. Bane, averaging 23.5 points per game in the series and 27 points in the last four games — much higher than Morant (18.5).
What's more, Reeves also has some hidden dangers against Morant - we need to know that Reeves is a 196cm, not very fast defender, and he also gained weight in the offseason to move closer to the No. 3 position - he is facing Morant and can't keep up with Morant's speed.
How did he defend Morant:
Reeves defends Morant, and must give Morant two or three steps of space to ensure that he is not suddenly accelerated by Morant.
Then there is also a hidden danger: although Morant is not accurate, but not completely unable to shoot or dare not shoot, if he has been given such a large opening, cold and unguarded to enter then one or two may cause unexpected damage to the Lakers - what's more, if Morant opens up a three-point feeling, the Lakers are likely to pay the price of a loss.
And in a close series, a loss caused by an "unexpected variable" can change the outcome of the entire series.
Let's talk about the second point that I'm not happy with the starting position.
This starter made Jaren Jackson Jr. too comfortable in the defensive position.
Vanderbilt is simply the perfect counterposition choice for Jaren Jackson Jr., not only does he have no shooting ability, but even the finishing efficiency under the basket is very low - Jaren Jackson Jr. can safely let go of Vanderbiao to block LeBron and Davis' attack. (Last season, the Wolf Bear G1, 3J took advantage of this set of matchups and sent 7 big risks in a single game)
As the team with the highest frequency of attacking the basket in the league, the success rate of attacking the basket is self-evident for the Lakers - and choosing to go head-to-head with the league's strongest (even history) opponent is obviously not a wise choice.
Change of formation?
Based on the above two points, I actually have a very bold idea of changing the formation:
The starting lineup took Russell and Vanderbilt, and was replaced by Schroder and Hachimura as the starting lineup.
In this way, the Lakers' lineup became Schroder + Reeves + James + Hachimura + Davis.
What are the benefits of this lineup?
1. The Lakers can make their best defender (and also limit Morant's best player) and more against Morant (Schroder).
Schroder's leading and defensive ability and rotation speed are stronger than Russell's, and his entry into the starting lineup can partially make up for LeBron's lack of ability to save the outside line, making the starting lineup more balanced. And his "raw burst" ability is stronger, and it is easier to target Morant - if you watched the Grizzlies' playoffs last year, you will know that the Timberwolves G5 is more than 20 points ahead of the Timberwolves by relying on the "Beverly Raw Morant" trick.
Russell's offensive development ability and ball handling ability are stronger than Schroder's, and his entry into the bench can improve the offensive level of the Lakers' second team, better create space for players such as Troy Brown and Beasley, and his defensive command ability is also more useful. (Ideally)
2, the Lakers can more effectively transfer 3J out of the box on the offensive end - Hachimura has three-point shooting ability, 3J can not completely empty him, so that as long as the Lakers arrange Hachimura in 45 degrees or bottom corner, 3J will be difficult to stay under the basket, and the Lakers' low-post offense and wing blocking will be easier to deploy.
On the defensive end, Hachimura is also very suitable for Jaren Jackson Jr. - 3J not only shoots three-pointers, but also attacks from the left side from outside the three-point line, and Hachimura is heavier than Vanderbilt and can better limit this move.
(It's only relative, and it will sacrifice some of Morant's ability to change defense, but given the weakening of the Timberwolves' defensive end, I think it's worth it)
Overall, this lineup is the only solution I can think of that will help the Lakers better target the Grizzlies on both ends of the offensive and defensive ends — but I think it's clear to everyone that it's almost impossible for Davenham to make such a drastic change to the starting lineup in Game 1 of the series.
The Lakers' more likely way to change the lineup is to start with the original lineup, and then start to make gradual adjustments after problems occur - such as trying to reduce the time of Russell and Vanderbilt first; If it doesn't work, try to win one of the two (most likely Vanderbilt); And after a certain Bain explosion, consider taking Russell....... During this period, it is unknown how much it will cost the Lakers.
This is the last point I want to make in this article – and probably the most important:
The biggest gap between the Grizzlies and Lakers may not be in the stars or rosters, but in the coach gap.
Coaching & Tactics
I think you've all heard about the toughness of "No Bears" last season — but I don't know how many people have watched the Grizzlies game and learned about Jenkins coach.
Let me tell you what I think — in fact, I think the reason why the Grizzlies are so strong is not because of the quality of the Grizzlies' role players and how strong the individual abilities are, but because the Grizzlies are a team with great tactical literacy and a very good coach.
Taylor Jenkins is a Spurs coach.
He joined the Spurs operations as an intern from '07, and in '08-'13, he served as head coach for the Austin Bulls, an affiliate of the Spurs Development League, and was a first-hand participant in "team basketball" in the Spurs' post-GDP era.
In '13, he followed Spurs assistant Budenholzer — yes, Hamm's "teacher" Budenholzer — to the Atlanta Hawks as an assistant coach. Then he spent another five years as an assistant coach in Atlanta — the Hawks, who won 60 regular season games and created five All-Star legends, the ultimate team basketball — and he was one of the main members.
Then '19, he followed Budenholzer to the Milwaukee Bucks — and you can see how much Budenholzer valued him from where he went—a season in which the Bucks won 60 and climbed to No. 1 in the East for the first time in 45 years.
In the '19-20 season, the Grizzlies poached him from the Bucks to rebuild the new Grizzlies with Morant, the year's picker — the pair moved the Grizzlies up 11 wins over last season in their first year — and then the next year, they eliminated the Warriors to the playoffs — and in the third year, they finished second in the West.
So, do you know what I mean? Taylor Jenkins really has something.
As a basketball practitioner, I pay attention to the tactics and systems of each team - and the Memphis Grizzlies have a variety and variety of tactics, which is currently the top of all teams in the league. (not even inferior to the Warriors)
In Jenkins' tactical philosophy, you can feel the deep imprint of the Spurs and Hawks of that decade - they are not obsessed with letting the best players on the team carry a lot of the ball and launch offense - as the top two point guards in the league, Morant only ranks 20th in the league in touches.
There are a lot of cuts, cuts, and covers in their tactics - not only the inside players will do the cover, but everyone can be a cover, even small defenders like Morant and Tyus Jones; And in the same way, not only do they small people cut in and out, such as Jalen Jackson and Aldama will also suddenly run a tactic of cutting out shots under cover in a certain round...
Mountains are amorphous, and water is impermanent.
This, combined with the large number of players with triple threat (frame, mid-range, three-pointer) in their roster makes it extremely difficult for opponents to predict how they will attack.
(That's why the Grizzlies can deliver decent offense even though they have significant shortcomings in the core, a low level of secondary attackers, and poor three-point shooting on the team.)
Let's take a look at two examples to give you a more intuitive feeling:
This is a tactic arranged by the Grizzlies against the Warriors in the final moments, and the GIF is longer for us to analyze:
The first forward misdirection - Jones uses cover to cut from the bottom corner to the top of the arc, this step is on the one hand to mislead the Warriors so that the opponent is not clear about his tactical intentions, and on the other hand to try whether it can cause the Warriors to change defenses. (This will play a role later if successful)
Look at the second one:
The second front misdirection was carried out almost simultaneously with the first - Morant made a cover for Aldama on the baseline, and Aldama cut from the right side of the box to the bottom left corner, this move is also aimed at testing whether the Warriors change defenses - if Rooney is blocked, Aldama will get an open three-point opportunity, and if Rooney is blocked, Morant will get a misalignment of Rooney.
Let's go on to see:
The Warriors defended very well this round: Green took a half-step outside to delay Aldama's outside cut, and Rooney also forcefully and quickly escaped Morant's cover entanglement - without allowing the round to form a change of defense or an open space.
So, as shown in the picture, the grizzly bear's third tactic took place.
Dillon at the free-throw line covers Morant cutting out the catch - is that what the Grizzlies really intended? Green's reaction was also very fast, he immediately realized that the third coordination was happening, and he immediately pointed at Morant, signaled Ku Ming to change the defense, and stayed on the inside.
Note that here we can feel the Grizzlies' intention to mislead the front in the first weight - if the Warriors choose to change defenses in the first weight, then it is not Kuminga but DiVincenzo who changes Morant at this time - obviously, it will be easier for Morant to have a slightly less physical fitness in a one-on-one situation.
But it doesn't matter either - Morant uses Kuname's inertia to start strong (in fact, he started a little slower) and pressed Kuname plus half a position into the basket.
Do you think the purpose of the Grizzlies this round is for layups? It's not.
The Grizzlies' real intention in this round was to play a "hammer" tactic - Dillon in the weak bottom corner made another cover for Jones, and then Morant attracted a shot from Green to get Jones for a big open three-point opportunity.
However, this round the players did some on-the-spot strains - the Warriors were quick and fierce, so Morant did not shoot the ball at the first time, but shook and clicked Green to make a foul - and seeing that Green completely blocked the passing route of the bottom line, Dillon did not choose to be solid as a cover, but rolled in to prepare to grab the rebound (or take Morant).
All in all, the tactic got the result the Grizzlies wanted—they made both free throws to overcome.
One more tactic:
It's a tactic the Grizzlies have against the Lakers this season.
Let's split it to parse it:
The first misguided front - Jackson used Aldama cover to cut out and get a big open three-point opportunity - if 3J felt that he could naturally shoot from the shooting point, and even if he didn't, this first tactic could have the effect of pulling Gabriel out of the box.
Let's look at the second one.
The second is a cross run between Conchar after handing over the ball and Bane in the bottom corner - this heavy combination is a typical misleading + front role, on the one hand, the actions of these two people will make the Lakers think whether Bane intends to cover Conchal, or Conchar intends to cover Bane - so that the Lakers may pause in hesitating to change defense.
And it doesn't matter if the Lakers don't pause — the real intent of this heavy fit was just to get Bane to where he should be.
A third co-operation followed:
This is a very confusing set of moves - when 3J and Bane move one inward and one outward towards each other in this position, the Lakers can't tell whether 3J is covering Bane outside or Bane is covering 3J inside.
You can see the momentary hesitation of the Lakers' player (Reeves) – he's wondering if he's going to squeeze through cover to chase Bane or switch defenses for 3J.
At the same time, Vanderbilt also made his decision - he judged that the Grizzlies' tactic in this round was Bane covering the 3J inside, so he contracted the inside to prepare to defend the 3J.
However, both Reeves and Vanderbilt were mistaken — the Grizzlies chose to trust Roddy, who responded to his teammate's trust with a three-point shot when no one was 10 meters.
After reading the above two rounds, I think everyone should be able to understand what I mean to a certain extent - this is not a team that can be defeated just by thinking about the opposition, you also need your players to be sharp enough, have enough tactical literacy to match the Grizzlies, and be prepared in advance for some of the Grizzlies' possible tactics, and can't always easily hand over the defense...
That's really hard for the average team to do — and that's perhaps why the Grizzlies are second in the West for two consecutive seasons.
Still, I'm confident that the Lakers can keep up with the Grizzlies on the defensive end — Davis is smart, James is smart, Reeves, Schroder, Russell are smart, they're the best defensive team in the league after the trade deadline, and we should have faith in them.
Let's look forward to the exciting tactical offensive and defensive game of this series.
In this series, the challenge for Hamm may be greater than the challenge for Lakers players.
The X factor
Finally, always talk about the X factors that can affect the outcome of the game.
In fact, both teams in this series have one X-factor in common - three-pointers.
This season, the Grizzlies shot 35 percent from three-point range, ranking 22nd in the league; The Lakers shot 34.5 percent from three-point range, ranking 24th in the league. It can be called a pair of difficult brothers and brothers.
And whether it is the stars that the Lakers are good at, holding the ball to attract defensive opportunities to create opportunities, or the stars + various covers that the Grizzlies are good at cutting in and out to create opportunities - in fact, they are inseparable from the last shot.
Both teams are obviously strong in the box and equally capable of protecting the rim – which means they must focus on each other's defenses in the box.
In this case, the quality of the outside response is very important.
In addition, the problem of error control we mentioned above is also an important X factor on the Lakers' side - if they can control the mistakes, the game will be a close situation; And if they can't control their mistakes, the game is likely to turn into a crushing game.
Equal strength, similar configuration, each with its own offensive and defensive system.
It was a very close series.
In the end, the key to deciding who wins is the processing of details, execution and speed of adjustment.
Prediction: Grizzly Bear Xiaoyu.