I know this concept from Vivek has been roundly mocked but I don't think anyone has really said WHY it's a horrible idea. So I took a couple minutes and thought about it from the perspective of the players who would have to run it and the opposing coach who would have to scheme against it.
The biggest reason this would never fly is that NBA players would refuse to run it. You could do this on the high school level and possibly on the college level (especially with a small school at a competitive disadvantage and unlikely to win by normal means) but professional players would balk. Primarily because it would skew the statistics of players who would then have to market themselves as free agents largely based on those statistics. If I were a player I'd see that sort of scheme as a detriment to my future value/contracts.
But even if you got a team to buy in, you'd have a 2-2 zone against an NBA offense that would always be able to get an open look. Moreover, if I were the opposing coach I'd use as much ball movement as possible to tire out the defenders who would be constantly either closing out on open players or rotating to help their teammates as they close out.
Any zone also creates issues with rebounding (because you don't actually have a designated man to box out) which would only be exacerbated by being outnumbered. And allowing offensive rebounds would only mean more exhaustion on the guys playing 4 on 5 defense.
Finally, as an opposing coach I'd simply say that whichever of my offensive players was furthest out when the shot went up would sprint back on defense instead of being involved in rebounding, often nullifying the deep outlet pass that is the whole reason for the 4 on 5 concept.
I doubt even Vivek would want the Kings running that stuff for a full game but I'd wager that after a game or two (or even during the first game) any decent NBA coach would make the adjustments to crush the Kings whenever they tried it. It'd essentially be the NBA version of a penalty play except self imposed and the few easy baskets you'd get the other way wouldn't come close to making up the disadvantage.
The biggest reason this would never fly is that NBA players would refuse to run it. You could do this on the high school level and possibly on the college level (especially with a small school at a competitive disadvantage and unlikely to win by normal means) but professional players would balk. Primarily because it would skew the statistics of players who would then have to market themselves as free agents largely based on those statistics. If I were a player I'd see that sort of scheme as a detriment to my future value/contracts.
But even if you got a team to buy in, you'd have a 2-2 zone against an NBA offense that would always be able to get an open look. Moreover, if I were the opposing coach I'd use as much ball movement as possible to tire out the defenders who would be constantly either closing out on open players or rotating to help their teammates as they close out.
Any zone also creates issues with rebounding (because you don't actually have a designated man to box out) which would only be exacerbated by being outnumbered. And allowing offensive rebounds would only mean more exhaustion on the guys playing 4 on 5 defense.
Finally, as an opposing coach I'd simply say that whichever of my offensive players was furthest out when the shot went up would sprint back on defense instead of being involved in rebounding, often nullifying the deep outlet pass that is the whole reason for the 4 on 5 concept.
I doubt even Vivek would want the Kings running that stuff for a full game but I'd wager that after a game or two (or even during the first game) any decent NBA coach would make the adjustments to crush the Kings whenever they tried it. It'd essentially be the NBA version of a penalty play except self imposed and the few easy baskets you'd get the other way wouldn't come close to making up the disadvantage.
