Thibs was probably choking himself with his tie after this one. You can see Finley clearly pointing to Hinrich (instructing Robinson to switch, we can probably assume verbally as well). One of the criticisms of Robinson has been that he looks lost on the court and I’m gonna back the vet on this one and lay the blame on Nate.

It looks like Thibs is all over the coaching in this set. He’s standing. He’s directing. You just can’t teach Nate to defend when he’s been playing in the no defense D’Antoni ball system for two years now.

I’m confident that Thibs had his VC up at 3:30 AM to have all of CHI-Towns sets prepared and ready to go. Nice work of Chicago to have Rose & Hinrich exhance from the top of the key to the wing. Robinson needs to switch onto Hinrich…there are no excuses here. Robinson must know the defensive strategy and philosphy against each and every opponent. I’m sick of hearing people make excuses for him because he is still relatively new to the team.

Good idea for the Celtics to double team Rose as he has torched Boston in wing and high pick & roll sets all seasons and especially in last season’s playoffs. Boston employed every p&r strategy last season and couldn’t stop him. However, this play illustrates how difficult it is to double team a quick PG at the top of the key or an elite scorer at the middle of the free-throw line with a live dribble. I respect the idea that the defense wants to get the ball out of Rose’s hands, but as it’s seen here, it’s extremely difficult to consistently make the proper rotations. If you fail to make even one rotation defensively or suffer a mental lapse, NBA personnel will burn you.

This is the type of stuff that makes the NBA a great brand of basketball in my opinion. The offensive ability at the NBA level is outstanding and the NBA three-point line makes rotations and close outs on the perimeter so difficult. I would employ the same strategy as Boston did to defend this play as trying to stop Rose in p&r situations is next to impossible. As a Boston fan, I hope that when the Bucks penetrate to the rim against them that there is an early help defender in the paint and that the weak side guard drops down into the lane to “help the helper” as this hallmark of the Celtics’ defense in 2007-2008 has been missing since early December.

When there’s an exchange on the weak side of the floor, the standard rule which applies to “Switching” is this:

1. The man who is originally defending against the player at the top of the key … who initiates the exchange action, on offense … is responsible for “making the verbal Switch call”, since he is the player who will then be responsible for defending the offensive player who is coming towards the basketball [which, in this case, is Kirk Hinrich, as opposed to the player who is going away from the ball which, in this case, is Derrick Rose.]

2. What this means in this instance is that it was Nate Robinson’s responsibility to verbally call out this defensive Switch action between himself and Michael Finley [who was the designated "Trapper" on this play and initially responsible for finding the open man ... in this case, Kirk Hinrich ... as the ball was passed out of the double-team on Rose to Luol Deng].

3. HOWEVER … and, in this case, it’s a fairly BIG ONE … if the verbal call is NOT MADE, in the first place, by Nate Robinson, then it becomes the sole responsibility of the initial “Trapper” [Michael Finley, in this instance] to stay with his designated check [who in this instance is in fact Kirk Hinrich] and NOT execute a “Switch”, at all, even though he may want to, or think it best to defend against this specific action by the offensive players.

Q1. What’s the specific rationale for this type of “Switching” Rule?

A1. Since Nate Robinson is the defensive player in position to have to pick up the “new” offensive player, who is now coming towards the ball, there is NO WAY for him to possibly react fast enough to Michael Finley’s verbal call … which happens to have been made late, in this specific instance … in such a way that he can effectively deny or properly defend against a pass to this new offensive player who is filling the spot next to the ball at the top of the key … at least, in comparison with the level of quickness he can react with IF HE IS THE DEFENSIVE PLAYER WHO HAS MADE THE “SWITCH” CALL, in the first place.

i.e. It’s the difference in real time between having to react to someone else’s verbal call and being able to initiate a specific defensive action, yourself, while a teammate then has the responsibility of reacting to a verbal call which you made. When the defensive player who is closest to the ball, in this type of denial situation, has to “react” to the verbal call of his teammate who is defending a player further away from the ball it usually has bad consequences for the defensive team. In this case, as you can clearly see, it results in an open 3 by Kirk Hinrich.

The fault in this specific instance lies with Michael Finley and NOT Nate Robinson.

[i.e. Nate Robinson SHOULD have been alert enough in the first place to make the proper verbal "Switch" call ... but, because he wasn't, Michael Finley then had the responsiblity to be disciplined enough to reverse his direction and STICK WITH HIS ORIGINAL CHECK on the play.]

Cheers

To me, this goes on Finley. Just watching the video shows how lost and panicked he was once Rose passed the ball. He sprinted towards the direction of Noah (perhaps he thought Hinrich had rolled over to the corner). He was just unaware of Hinrich’s location, and the exchange of position between Rose and Hinrich was well-timed. The only reason there was a need for a switch was because Finley lost his man. Like khandor said, if you’re gonna switch, the one who has to switch onto the ball-handler should be the one calling it.