I am sure everyone has heard the phrase, "only a strong as it's weakest link." Well that phrase is true for defense but not necessarily on offense. On defense a team does not (typically) get to decide where the offense gets to attack them. The offense will likely attack the weakest defensive player and either exploit the match-up for an easier score or force the other defenders to help creating other opportunities on the floor. So the defense truly is "only as strong as the weakest link".

On offense though a team is not "only as strong as the weakest link" because the team doesn't have to utilize the weakest link at all. It is their choice whether or not to include the player. The offense can decide to go through the strongest "links" first. It is all about exploiting a strong mismatch.

This gets to the heart of the difference between offensive and defensive team success. If I were to build a super team then I offensively I would want a couple of players who were dominant scorers inside, a couple of great shooters, a couple of guys who can penetrate and create opportunities, and a couple of slashers to finish plays. I don't necessarily need a single guy who can do all of those things (although that would be best), as long as I have a single mismatch somewhere I can exploit it so it really boils down to having differet players who are each bove average at a certain skill. Basically I need a "typical" PG, SG, SF, PF, C.

On defense however I need 5 guys who each have very few weaknesses that can be exploited. I need guys who can all move their feet, have length to disrupt passes and shots, and can rebound. Basically I don't need each of a PG, SG, SF, PF, and C but rather a bunch of guys that can each guard multiple positions (which is especially helpful in pick-and-roll when a team can switch).

So I think on offense, the positions are important with regard to skills (not necessarily size) but on defense it is not important what your typical position is but whether you have the ability to guard multiple positions.

Why not skip the "D" and simplify even further?

Shorter shorthand.

1,2,3,4,5 = offensive role.
a,b,c,d,e = defensive role.

In Cannon's example, rather than Scheyer the 1/D2 or Smith the 2/D1, Scheyer becomes 1b, Smith 2a.

Likewise Young (2a), Funk (1b), Crouch (3c), Wilson (5d), Calathes (4e).

Same thing, less syllables. less numeric, less confusion.

Even Coach K can be a little too concrete sequential for his own good.

Tomorrow, color-coded skillsets.

Seems you can flip this completely around and say really that if you can find D1-D5 and rebound that you can find ways to score enough in a given game.

Thinking about someone like Pippen and Rodman. Between those two guys you could guard any position on the floor with high effectiveness. Rodman could guard 3-5 and Pippen could guard 1-3. Add MJ from those Bulls teams and you have another guy that can guard 1-3.

The ability to defend multiple positions and sizes seems much more pivotal than having a scorer and creator/handler. This is where the Bad Boys and the Bulls were so impressive. Since defense is ultimately a reaction to other teams it can't be controlled with any certainty like offense. If you get guys in the NBA with athleticism, work ethic, and common sense a good coach and shape an offensive system of reasonable effectiveness for them. The key is to have enough variability in defensive talent to guard the other 29 teams of varying sizes and skill sets.

So in building a team I would never recruit for offense personally. I would look for guys that could defend multiple posistions effectively.

In today's NBA you'd think of guys like Noah, Varejao, Battier, Anthony Randolph, LeBron, etc.

In recruiting, I think teams are stuck in the traditional roles too much and really recruit to a system far more than necessary. Why not recruit to talent and build an offensive system around that talent? There are as many offensive systems as there are skill sets.

The Bad Boy Pistons had a creator/handler in Isiah, but no one else that would really fit the "scorer" mold after Dantley left. They had great rebounders and multi-faceted defenders. To me that is more important. Don't recruit to system or to fill offensive roles. Recruit to defensive variability and athleticism and build around that as best you can.

A statistical system that could predict the potential efficiency of a given lineup (as a function of their respective TS%, USG%, 3pt%, Reb%, Ast%, DefRate, ect) would bring this analysis a step further, by explaining the relative merits of a lineup of all shooters, or with two strong rebounders, or the d'antoni fantasy of a team composed entirely of 6'8" combo-forwards with a variety of different skills.

At the beginning of the 09/10 season, phoenix was roundly criticized for their lack of rebounding. They managed to more than offset this 'deficiency' by playing alternative lineups that were incredibly offensively efficient, making up for the lack of an ability/role deemed 'essential'.

LeBron playing the four also means he is guarding the opposing team's power forward, and it increases the chance that he will be on the floor with three other shooters (for instance, Mo, Delonte, and Anthony Parker last year).

I think a number of NBA teams are adapting this positional flexibility in order to better take advantage of a market that improperly values certain characteristics. Orlando is the most obvious example of this, but Portland also fits the idea to some extent.

I'm sure that when most people think about a player, they quickly go beyond positional designations. In fact, I think that the defensive designations proposed by Cannon are a big part of what people already think about. One of the first questions I ask when thinking about a player is whether he can guard his position on the court. Ben Wallace was noteworthy because even though he was undersized, he could guard larger players, which weighs in favor of counting him as a center.

So basically 2 points: (1) the 5 positions are already useful, people already go beyond them, and (2) any alternative scheme has a high risk of being more confusing and less brief.

Additionally, it may also be the case that the 5 positions are so deeply rooted in the teaching of organized basketball that they will never go away or be replaced by something else.