Spots (alternate title: Handling 301)
I'm going to make some general statements about offense. The plan is to start heading down this train of thought and see where I get.
As a handler in an offensive structure, you want the disc to move to good spots so that your offense can function smoothly.
I don't think too many people would argue with this. This seems critical and apparent. So a key piece is that it shouldn't really matter to you how the disc gets to the "good spots", just that it gets there and that you get to the end goal of well functioning offense.
I think a couple things jump out at me from this:
1. What is a "good spot"?
2. What does it mean for an offense to "function smoothly"?
I'm going to kind of gloss over what it means for an offense to "function smoothly" for this post. For now I'll just say that it means moving the disc with relative ease, good timing/spacing, and scoring without much pressure. Maybe it loosely means that the offense's (individuals) strengths are well utilized and result in effective and low risk scores.
I want to toss around a few ideas about "good spots".
-----------
Good Spots: Definitions and Brute Force
I'd start by defining a good spot as a place where our offense can be threatening. Threatening means a place where multiple throwing options (deep/under/break) and cutting options (deep/under/break) are available and the defense is forced to defend many real options. Threatening could also mean a place where we have a positional or momentum advantage over the defense, such a breakside pass that leads to breakside continuations. Threatening could be power position on the open side, as this can give the offense a momentum advantage (sente). Threatening could also be something more nuanced but less flashy, like a well timed clear that opens a cutting lane after an around swing.
I think a critical piece of this is that players can "create" good spots with skilled off-disc movement.
An example of this is being the reset and clearing to make a huge lane (putting your offense in a threatening position). So how do players "create" offense? Let's dig a bit deeper into what makes a "good spot" first.
So, good spots are:
- Places where a positional advantage can be gained over the D
- Places where a multiple kinds of throws are realistic
- Places where the defense is outnumbered or outmatched
- Places where a continuation can be made to another "good spot"
- Places where space opportunities are developing
Note: "Spots" is a misnomer. I'm not just talking about locations. Since their value is time and momentum dependent, I think it's more like peaks on a threat-level heat map. But we'll keep using spots as the name because it's easier to wrap our heads around.
Then I think I would add that the definition of a good spot is dependent on the offensive formation you are using. So for a horizontal stack we want to make the deep space wide open and give cutters a lot of space in which to make moves. So we want to keep the disc closer to the middle of the field to give our deep shots more margin and make our breaks more viable. For a vert stack we want to exploit momentum advantages and break throws by moving the disc laterally. So around passes and continuations are at a premium.
So, good spots are:
- Places where your offense wants the disc to go
- Places that give your offense better chances of scoring
The next piece that seems apparent is that good spots also must depend on the type of defense you're playing against. Very obviously what is a "good spot" against a simple person D forehand force will be vastly different from a good spot against a 2-3-2 zone set. For example, against person D forehand, moving the disc to the breakside can create a positional advantage, which leads to continuation opportunities and presents a threat to the defense to which they must react. Against a 2-3-2, one offensive approach might be to move the disc with short to midrange quick passes to exploit holes in the defensive formation. This is an example of moving the disc to a spot where the defense is outnumbered and out of position.
So from this perspective it's starting to feel like "good spots" are just a long list of brute force conditionals. If a1, do b1. If a2 do b2. If a3 do b3. etc, etc. I think that might be a partial answer, but I want to keep going since I think it's a pretty unsatisfactory one.
----------
Creating: Using Rules of Thumb and Making Space
So if the brute force idea is looking at the game as a discrete data set, maybe another way to look at the game is as a bunch of continuous values. So rather than defining a specific response to each individual scenario, we can use rules and priorities to define a wide range of appropriate responses to infinite possible scenarios.
I think good athletes do this subconsciously. The point of discussing it here is to try and understand the logic and mechanism of creation of these rules, so we can define them and grow them better.
So for example, let's say your team loves cramming the disc down the sideline. They never seem to throw the centering pass. One possible explanation is that there is a team-wide rule/priority fault. Maybe they are lowering the value of the centering pass, so that whenever the are given the option of forcing something upfield versus re-positioning, they pick the upfield look. This would likely be something that the team has subconsciously picked up through drill selection, reinforcement (positive/negative), what has worked in the past, etc.
So what are good rules of thumb? Taking from the above section on "good spots":
So, good spots are:
- Places where a positional advantage can be gained over the D
- Places where a multiple kinds of throws are realistic
- Places where the defense is outnumbered or outmatched
- Places where a continuation can be made to another "good spot"
- Places where space opportunities are developing
I think these are pretty good rules of thumb. They are vague enough that they can be applied to a lot of situations, but hopefully specific enough as to be actionable. I think that players should be trying to do these things constantly on offense by default . A lot of this can and must happen without a lot of conscious (system 2) thought. If I'm on the field I don't have time to stand here and think about each of these 5 things and assess all my options in terms of them. So players must learn to apply these concepts automatically. By the same token, if a player has a rash of errors caused by a rule fault (maybe an incorrect priority or response), then effort should be made to correct it.
What about creating good spots off the disc? I think that an aspect of offense that doesn't get addressed that often is "creating" off the disc. What I mean by this is specifically: things players do that create something for an offense without a throw. So obviously these are things players do with movement, usually by moving in a threatening way. So things that fall into this basket are: moving to make space for yourself, moving to make space for others, moving to take space for yourself, etc. So for example if a player cuts hard upline, they are both taking the upline space and making space for an around pass. By continuing their move upline even if they do not receive the disc, they have opened space for others to take.
In basketball, commentators will often talk about point guards and their ability to "create their own shot". The commentators are referring to the ability of a player to use moves and quickness to create space for themselves to take a good look. I think that this is all about how these players set themselves up and execute with their legs (and the ball, in basketball). I think that players in ultimate, especially players in the reset space, can and should set themselves up to "create" good spots on offense, both for themselves and for others. This is done by: setting up in a threatening position, attacking with your legs in a threatening way, making the defense choose, knowing what you want, etc. Derek Alexander is one of the best at "creating" space for himself in the reset space. But differently than in basketball, I think success at creating in ultimate doesn't always mean you get the disc, it could mean that your team moves the disc to a good spot, due to the space you helped make.
I think the holy grail of offense is when you have a 7 players who know how to create for themselves and each other. When you combine that with a strong understanding of "good spots", I think you move a step closer to jogo bonito.
-----------
I'm going to make some general statements about offense. The plan is to start heading down this train of thought and see where I get.
As a handler in an offensive structure, you want the disc to move to good spots so that your offense can function smoothly.
I don't think too many people would argue with this. This seems critical and apparent. So a key piece is that it shouldn't really matter to you how the disc gets to the "good spots", just that it gets there and that you get to the end goal of well functioning offense.
I think a couple things jump out at me from this:
1. What is a "good spot"?
2. What does it mean for an offense to "function smoothly"?
I'm going to kind of gloss over what it means for an offense to "function smoothly" for this post. For now I'll just say that it means moving the disc with relative ease, good timing/spacing, and scoring without much pressure. Maybe it loosely means that the offense's (individuals) strengths are well utilized and result in effective and low risk scores.
I want to toss around a few ideas about "good spots".
-----------
Good Spots: Definitions and Brute Force
I'd start by defining a good spot as a place where our offense can be threatening. Threatening means a place where multiple throwing options (deep/under/break) and cutting options (deep/under/break) are available and the defense is forced to defend many real options. Threatening could also mean a place where we have a positional or momentum advantage over the defense, such a breakside pass that leads to breakside continuations. Threatening could be power position on the open side, as this can give the offense a momentum advantage (sente). Threatening could also be something more nuanced but less flashy, like a well timed clear that opens a cutting lane after an around swing.
I think a critical piece of this is that players can "create" good spots with skilled off-disc movement.
An example of this is being the reset and clearing to make a huge lane (putting your offense in a threatening position). So how do players "create" offense? Let's dig a bit deeper into what makes a "good spot" first.
So, good spots are:
- Places where a positional advantage can be gained over the D
- Places where a multiple kinds of throws are realistic
- Places where the defense is outnumbered or outmatched
- Places where a continuation can be made to another "good spot"
- Places where space opportunities are developing
Note: "Spots" is a misnomer. I'm not just talking about locations. Since their value is time and momentum dependent, I think it's more like peaks on a threat-level heat map. But we'll keep using spots as the name because it's easier to wrap our heads around.
 |
| A possible threat-level heat map |
Then I think I would add that the definition of a good spot is dependent on the offensive formation you are using. So for a horizontal stack we want to make the deep space wide open and give cutters a lot of space in which to make moves. So we want to keep the disc closer to the middle of the field to give our deep shots more margin and make our breaks more viable. For a vert stack we want to exploit momentum advantages and break throws by moving the disc laterally. So around passes and continuations are at a premium.
So, good spots are:
- Places where your offense wants the disc to go
- Places that give your offense better chances of scoring
The next piece that seems apparent is that good spots also must depend on the type of defense you're playing against. Very obviously what is a "good spot" against a simple person D forehand force will be vastly different from a good spot against a 2-3-2 zone set. For example, against person D forehand, moving the disc to the breakside can create a positional advantage, which leads to continuation opportunities and presents a threat to the defense to which they must react. Against a 2-3-2, one offensive approach might be to move the disc with short to midrange quick passes to exploit holes in the defensive formation. This is an example of moving the disc to a spot where the defense is outnumbered and out of position.
So from this perspective it's starting to feel like "good spots" are just a long list of brute force conditionals. If a1, do b1. If a2 do b2. If a3 do b3. etc, etc. I think that might be a partial answer, but I want to keep going since I think it's a pretty unsatisfactory one.
----------
Creating: Using Rules of Thumb and Making Space
So if the brute force idea is looking at the game as a discrete data set, maybe another way to look at the game is as a bunch of continuous values. So rather than defining a specific response to each individual scenario, we can use rules and priorities to define a wide range of appropriate responses to infinite possible scenarios.
I think good athletes do this subconsciously. The point of discussing it here is to try and understand the logic and mechanism of creation of these rules, so we can define them and grow them better.
So for example, let's say your team loves cramming the disc down the sideline. They never seem to throw the centering pass. One possible explanation is that there is a team-wide rule/priority fault. Maybe they are lowering the value of the centering pass, so that whenever the are given the option of forcing something upfield versus re-positioning, they pick the upfield look. This would likely be something that the team has subconsciously picked up through drill selection, reinforcement (positive/negative), what has worked in the past, etc.
So what are good rules of thumb? Taking from the above section on "good spots":
So, good spots are:
- Places where a positional advantage can be gained over the D
- Places where a multiple kinds of throws are realistic
- Places where the defense is outnumbered or outmatched
- Places where a continuation can be made to another "good spot"
- Places where space opportunities are developing
I think these are pretty good rules of thumb. They are vague enough that they can be applied to a lot of situations, but hopefully specific enough as to be actionable. I think that players should be trying to do these things constantly on offense by default . A lot of this can and must happen without a lot of conscious (system 2) thought. If I'm on the field I don't have time to stand here and think about each of these 5 things and assess all my options in terms of them. So players must learn to apply these concepts automatically. By the same token, if a player has a rash of errors caused by a rule fault (maybe an incorrect priority or response), then effort should be made to correct it.
What about creating good spots off the disc? I think that an aspect of offense that doesn't get addressed that often is "creating" off the disc. What I mean by this is specifically: things players do that create something for an offense without a throw. So obviously these are things players do with movement, usually by moving in a threatening way. So things that fall into this basket are: moving to make space for yourself, moving to make space for others, moving to take space for yourself, etc. So for example if a player cuts hard upline, they are both taking the upline space and making space for an around pass. By continuing their move upline even if they do not receive the disc, they have opened space for others to take.
In basketball, commentators will often talk about point guards and their ability to "create their own shot". The commentators are referring to the ability of a player to use moves and quickness to create space for themselves to take a good look. I think that this is all about how these players set themselves up and execute with their legs (and the ball, in basketball). I think that players in ultimate, especially players in the reset space, can and should set themselves up to "create" good spots on offense, both for themselves and for others. This is done by: setting up in a threatening position, attacking with your legs in a threatening way, making the defense choose, knowing what you want, etc. Derek Alexander is one of the best at "creating" space for himself in the reset space. But differently than in basketball, I think success at creating in ultimate doesn't always mean you get the disc, it could mean that your team moves the disc to a good spot, due to the space you helped make.
I think the holy grail of offense is when you have a 7 players who know how to create for themselves and each other. When you combine that with a strong understanding of "good spots", I think you move a step closer to jogo bonito.
-----------
No comments:
Post a Comment