(2020) C Zach Loveday to Baylor

[Class of '66 Old Fart]

Gallia Academy (4-3) beat Coal Grove 65-58.  

Zach Loveday — who was limited to just three field goals and 10 points in the first half — dominated the second half as the junior poured in 10 points in the third while helping Gallia Academy to a 50-44 edge headed into the finale.  Loveday tacked on another nine points down the stretch as the Blue Devils closed regulation with small 15-14 run, wrapping up the final seven-point outcome.  Loveday poured in a game-high 29 points despite going 5-of-16 at the free throw line. 

[Class of '66 Old Fart]

Gallia Academy (5-3) over Point Pleasant (1-6)  67-39.  Zach Loveday led GAHS with a double-double effort of 15 points and 11 rebounds in three quarters of action

[Uspshoosier]

Transferred to Huntington Prep


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners

[Class of '66 Old Fart]

1 hour ago, Uspshoosier said:

Transferred to Huntington Prep
 

Major news out of Ohio today.

Top-50 junior Zach Loveday has transferred to powerhouse, Huntington Prep.

“I know it was tough to leave but I know this is a better situation for me,” Loveday told me.

He joins 2020 five-star Jaemyn Brakefield, Top-15 sophomore JT Thor, Jimma Gatwech, and Louisville signee Quinn Slazinski.

“I did a shadowing thing today but I’m officially enrolled and I get my schedule tomorrow,” Loveday said.

“This move just puts me in a better position on the court with better players, a bigger stage and staff that will take great care of me. The school is great too the teachers are really caring.”

He also added how he visited Louisville for the game against Kentucky last weekend.

[Class of '66 Old Fart]

Jake‏Verified account @jakeweingarten 

Indiana was at Huntington Prep today checking out four-star junior Zach Loveday, a source told @Stockrisers.  Also checking out several others.

[ap2345]

On campus today.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners

[Brass Cannon]

43 minutes ago, Hardwood83 said:

I approve of this development. Not sure how likely IU is to land him, but I would always like to see 2 real centers on the roster- no one under 6'9" need apply :) I know there have been LOTS of under-sized over-achievers, but I would prefer over-sized over-achievers for once. 

I am not sold on "positionless" basketball. Unless you have lots real talent it seems to be an empty buzzword for unbalanced rosters full of tweeners that don't do anything well. 

All that said- C'mon down Zach! IU has as a nice 3 year starter opening for you! 

Positionless basketball is decent term for it but regardless what you call them you still need a big, a ball handler, a slasher and at 2 shooters. 

Obviously if there’s some overlap you can have more. The issue with Creans positionless was that resulted in missing key roles

[Brass Cannon]

Him and leal would be a great start to a class. 

[BGleas]

On 5/31/2019 at 1:41 PM, Hardwood83 said:

I approve of this development. Not sure how likely IU is to land him, but I would always like to see 2 real centers on the roster- no one under 6'9" need apply :) I know there have been LOTS of under-sized over-achievers, but I would prefer over-sized over-achievers for once. 

I am not sold on "positionless" basketball. Unless you have lots real talent it seems to be an empty buzzword for unbalanced rosters full of tweeners that don't do anything well. 

All that said- C'mon down Zach! IU has as a nice 3 year starter opening for you! 

Positionless basketball doesn’t mean you don’t have bigs, it means those bigs are skilled guys that can handle, pass, shoot and defend the perimeter. For example, I just watched Boogie Cousins, who is a big dude, grab a board and take it up in transition and the kick it out to Iggoudala for a 3. 

[Bigred3588]

5 hours ago, BGleas said:

Positionless basketball doesn’t mean you don’t have bigs, it means those bigs are skilled guys that can handle, pass, shoot and defend the perimeter. For example, I just watched Boogie Cousins, who is a big dude, grab a board and take it up in transition and the kick it out to Iggoudala for a 3. 

While I agree with your description, I can’t say I agree with your example. You described a PF that can maintain his handle for 90 feet. Lebron James and Kevin Durant are examples of positionless players. Players like that only come along once or twice in a decade which means it’s probably not the best approach when building a program. 

[mdn82]

While I agree with your description, I can’t say I agree with your example. You described a PF that can maintain his handle for 90 feet. Lebron James and Kevin Durant are examples of positionless players. Players like that only come along once or twice in a decade which means it’s probably not the best approach when building a program. 

A good majority of NBA players fall under his description for a positionless player. You picked the two best players on the planet at it. You don’t have to be the best at it to make it true.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

[Bigred3588]

1 hour ago, mdn82 said:

A good majority of NBA players fall under his description for a positionless player. You picked the two best players on the planet at it. You don’t have to be the best at it to make it true.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

So you'd consider Demarcus Cousins to be a positionless player? You'd trust him to be your primary ball handler and you'd have no problem with him leading the team in 3 point attempts?

I picked those two guys because they are the only ones that can do all of those things at a high enough level to negate the need for players that specialize in those skill sets. Sure, there are guys that can do a little bit of all those things, but there aren't enough to say that positionless basketball is the best approach to building a team. Especially if we start talking the college level.

[Brass Cannon]

52 minutes ago, Bigred3588 said:

So you'd consider Demarcus Cousins to be a positionless player? You'd trust him to be your primary ball handler and you'd have no problem with him leading the team in 3 point attempts?

I picked those two guys because they are the only ones that can do all of those things at a high enough level to negate the need for players that specialize in those skill sets. Sure, there are guys that can do a little bit of all those things, but there aren't enough to say that positionless basketball is the best approach to building a team. Especially if we start talking the college level.

Position less doesn’t mean they can play all 5 positions. Position less mean they can float and play multiple roles for them. There literally is no team anywhere where everybody can play every role. 

[mdn82]

So you'd consider Demarcus Cousins to be a positionless player? You'd trust him to be your primary ball handler and you'd have no problem with him leading the team in 3 point attempts?
I picked those two guys because they are the only ones that can do all of those things at a high enough level to negate the need for players that specialize in those skill sets. Sure, there are guys that can do a little bit of all those things, but there aren't enough to say that positionless basketball is the best approach to building a team. Especially if we start talking the college level.

Can Durant guard a big on the block? By your statement he wouldn’t be positionless player. Cousins can bring the ball down the court if he needed to. But he isn’t as quick down the court as others. That’s why he wasn’t in the game much in fourth despite playing a really good game last night all things considered. Well that and his defense on pick and roll. You don’t need a team that can do everything. Everyone has a role but they have flexibility which is what this is. If it wasn’t you would have a true pg, sg, sf, pf, and back to basket center. You really will struggle to win that way anymore.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

[Stromboli]

I think it's roster mismanagement if you don't have two big bigs to cycle in.  At least 6'10".  It has very little to do with offense, but everything to do with defense.  You can still score if you have 5 guards.  But if the other team has a big, you have to have the guys to defend him.  By its nature the defenders in the lane pick up fouls, and so you really need two of them.  I've mentioned before that Archie really got hamstrung this year by playing Juwan at the 5, and then having his best player on the bench for huge periods of time.

 

Positionless as a term gets tossed around far more than as a true strategy.  I think a better way of saying it is that you want versatile players.  Of course everyone wants the 6'9" players that can pass, drive, shoot the 3, and defend 1-5.  Duh?  There just aren't many of them.  Rob Phinisee wouldn't excel on a "positionless" team, but if Rob Phinisee wants to commit to you and take on the traditional PG role, then by golly you let him.  You scheme around the talents of your players.

 

For the advanced analytics guys, the NBA has prioritized running data to see which players complement each other, and then basing lineups on that.  I think it's called the Net Rating.  This is the origin of the GSW "death lineup."  Also, you guys may remember a couple years back, Yogi teamed up with Dirk to form the unlikely most efficient (although seldom used) lineup in the NBA.  Archie has made glancing comments in the past about seeing how guys play with each other to determine lineups, and so it's possible that he's keeping this data himself.  

 

The "PG/SG/SF/PF/C" terminology is hokey and dated, but I think we all know what it means.  Just as easy to use the 1-5 designation and get your point across.  It's just a quick way of communicating a player's attributes.  

 

Another interesting take is the guy that used his company's mapping algorithms and determined there are 13 positions.  The article itself hasn't gained much traction, but it's just another way of saying that what you really want are good basketball players, rather than pigeon-holed traditional roles.  https://www.wired.com/2012/04/analytics-basketball/

[Stuhoo]

Strom is so, so on point. 

Need players to rebound and defend against size - not 'positionless' in that respect. But on offense, there are plenty of skillsets that can work with so many different size players filling them. 

For instance, I grew up a Chicago Bulls fan. In the 70's they had a 'true' point (Van Lier) at 6'1", a true sg (Sloan) at 6'4", two true forwards (Love & Walker), and  true 5 (Boerwinkle) at 7'0"" Each of those players skills fit the conventional definition of what their size and position should encompass, and they were perenniel contenders.

In the 90's the Bulls had either Kerr, Paxson, or BJ Armstrong at 6'1" at the guard spot opposite Jordan for a large amount of time. On defense each of these small players guarded the other team's conventional point, but on offense they were pure wings, with Jordan, Pippen, or Kukoc playing the point. 

 

[Brass Cannon]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E-gpSQQe3w8 

embedding video not working. Sites not working on my personal phone

Par for the course I guess

But an interesting video on basketball positions 

[BGleas]

On 6/3/2019 at 3:04 AM, Bigred3588 said:

While I agree with your description, I can’t say I agree with your example. You described a PF that can maintain his handle for 90 feet. Lebron James and Kevin Durant are examples of positionless players. Players like that only come along once or twice in a decade which means it’s probably not the best approach when building a program. 

Positionless basketball does not mean 5 LeBron’s on the floor. It doesn’t mean 5 guys that are wings all playing together. It typically means a guard, 2 wings, a stretch or perimeter 4 and a big that is athletic enough to switch defensively on the perimeter and has the skill to handle a bit, play the pick and roll, etc. 

Bigs IU has had that fall under a positionless lineup would be Zeller, Vonleh, Bryant, Beifeldt, Morgan, I’d expect TJD, etc. Perimeter 4’s we’ve had that fall under this are Watford, Troy Williams, Justin Smith, etc, 

So yes, you can build a program that way. 

 

 

[Bigred3588]

3 hours ago, BGleas said:

Positionless basketball does not mean 5 LeBron’s on the floor. It doesn’t mean 5 guys that are wings all playing together. It typically means a guard, 2 wings, a stretch or perimeter 4 and a big that is athletic enough to switch defensively on the perimeter and has the skill to handle a bit, play the pick and roll, etc. 

Bigs IU has had that fall under a positionless lineup would be Zeller, Vonleh, Bryant, Beifeldt, Morgan, I’d expect TJD, etc. Perimeter 4’s we’ve had that fall under this are Watford, Troy Williams, Justin Smith, etc, 

So yes, you can build a program that way. 

 

 

By definition, "less" is an adjective suffix meaning "without." Ergo, positionless means without having a position. You just described a lineup consisting of 5 distinct positions. Just because you put more than 1 of them in a lineup doesn't mean the "traditional" roles don't need to be filled. You can call them a wing, but one of those wings needs to be able to shoot. It'll just be someone an inch or two taller than your prototypical SG. The other wing still needs to provide some offense as well as some rebounding. Call me crazy, but that sounds eerily familiar to the responsibilities of a SF. The only difference between what you're describing and the way teams have always been built is that traditional bigs are expected to be more athletic/mobile.  

As far as the IU examples, well, they're honestly kind of counter-productive. We've been using that approach for 8 years and made 2 sweet sixteen appearances. So sure, I guess you can build a program that way. But like I said before, I'm not sure it's the best approach.

[HoosierAloha]

By definition, "less" is an adjective suffix meaning "without." Ergo, positionless means without having a position. You just described a lineup consisting of 5 distinct positions. Just because you put more than 1 of them in a lineup doesn't mean the "traditional" roles don't need to be filled. You can call them a wing, but one of those wings needs to be able to shoot. It'll just be someone an inch or two taller than your prototypical SG. The other wing still needs to provide some offense as well as some rebounding. Call me crazy, but that sounds eerily familiar to the responsibilities of a SF. The only difference between what you're describing and the way teams have always been built is that traditional bigs are expected to be more athletic/mobile.  
As far as the IU examples, well, they're honestly kind of counter-productive. We've been using that approach for 8 years and made 2 sweet sixteen appearances. So sure, I guess you can build a program that way. But like I said before, I'm not sure it's the best approach.

Because we’re already crazy off topic..

Overlapping/multiple positions would be a better title for it but that just doesn’t sound nearly as cool as position less.

On the IU teams, beyond Zeller being an athletic big who could trap a PNR to the point of making the steal, dribbling half the court, and then slamming it home you had other players doing multiple things.

Watford could shoot, well, from distance. He was also able to back his man down. He could defend an opposing big and use his length on smaller guards. He brought the ball up (VCU in the tourney).

Oladipo could do multiple things on offense and defense. He could bring the ball up or give him the ball at the top of the key, and when his mind caught up to his athletic ability, there wasn’t anyone who could stay in front of him. He worked on his shot and became a jump shooter from dribble drive kick outs.

Hulls ran point and was a lights out shooter.

Yogi ran point but could also move off ball.

It’s not about taking your 5 and having him run point. It’s not about your point posting up. It’s about players having multiple skills that overlap. If Curry wasn’t a lights out shooter it wouldn’t work. If you took Curry out and put Rondo in his place it wouldn’t work. However, you can use Durant or Green as a primary ball handler and run Curry off screens. If Looney still cod around in the Bay Area you could see even more wrinkles in the GSW offense too. That dude just does what’s asked of him now but he can be so much better.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app