Alex Caruso is elite at screen navigation. Not only has he mastered a precise technique for efficiently getting around screens, he’s also developed ways to avoid getting screened in the first place. As explained by Caruso himself in this excellent article from Will Gotlieb of CHGO, he’ll often hop forward just as he’s about to get screened by an opposing player:
This funny tactic forces the player setting the screen to either try and quickly set a second screen or to abandon the screen entirely and reset the action. The former often results in a moving screen violation because Caruso is already in movement as the second screen is set, attached to the hip of the ball handler; the latter shaves valuable seconds off of the shot clock. If the screen is legally set, Caruso’s hop allows him to get better position on the play and quickly negate any advantage created by the screen.
Caruso’s hop is one of many examples that illustrate how defenders use something called cognitive athleticism to become playmakers, bending opposing teams to their will on the defensive end of the floor. Much like their offensive counterparts, defensive playmakers are adept at controlling the action around them to maximize each possession and prevent the other team from running their sets effectively. Yet despite defensive playmaking’s indispensable importance to winning basketball, the impact of its major component – cognitive athleticism – has largely gone under the radar.
I want to explore why that is and illustrate how we can get better at recognizing cognitive athleticism’s impact on defense and defensive playmaking specifically. To do that, it’s essential to first discuss: the inherent difficulties in quantifying defense; what the goals of good defense are and how those are, at times, misaligned with the statistics that attempt to measure them; and how untracked or unique defensive traits that have an outsized impact on defense are often difficult to pin down or reproduce in data.
Finally, I’ll examine what cognitive athleticism is, how it manifests, how it allows players to raise both the floor and ceiling of a good defense, and how we can get better at identifying it. I’m going to illustrate this largely through the lens of two players that demonstrate, in my estimation, elite levels of this athleticism – Alex Caruso and Nikola Jokic.
The Problem with Quantifying Defense
The basketball world has gotten increasingly obsessed over the years with collecting and organizing data in ways that can accurately estimate the impact of individual players or lineups of players on winning games. You know, the “VORPs and schnorps” Zach Lowe loves to talk about. These various metrics are not perfect, nor are they intended to be, but significant strides have been made with offensive metrics in particular, such that they tend to provide a fairly accurate picture of who is doing good things on the offensive end and how they are doing it. Lagging far behind, however, are defensive metrics. Zach Kram at The Ringer had a great article last year about the inherent issues in attempting to create accurate defensive statistics, which is highly recommended reading. The gist, though, is that defense remains extremely difficult to quantify in any consistent and meaningful way, and the best path to learn a player’s impact on defense is still the long one: watch an exorbitant amount of film and develop a deep understanding of what is happening on the floor on each possession. For the foregoing reasons, highly impactful defensive players have always gotten a lot less shine than their offensive counterparts, if they are even properly identified at all.
The art of defensive playmaking has remained especially underappreciated. When we discuss elite playmakers, for example, the context is always on offense. Players like Nikola Jokic, LeBron James, or Luka Doncic have the remarkable ability to survey the basketball court and efficiently process the movements of their teammates and opponents in real time. They master every angle, every eyeball shift, every foot movement to create just the right amount of space for an open shot or deliver a pinpoint pass at just the right moment. You’ve heard announcers and analysts alike rave about how these players always seem a step ahead of the defense and how they create unique advantages with that precognition. That same prescience – the ability to know what will happen before it happens – is the key skill with which players can become impactful defensive playmakers. As illustrated by the initial example involving Alex Caruso, defensive playmakers use cognitive athleticism to create game-altering defensive events that can completely transform a team’s defensive aptitude. To understand its importance, it is essential to understand what good defense is and what it looks like.
The Goal of Defense
At the risk of insulting your intelligence for a second, I want to lay out defense at the granular level in order to demonstrate that cognitive athleticism is at the heart of every good defense. As we know, basketball is a simple game: put the ball in the other basket and prevent the other team from putting the ball in your basket. Conceptually, then, winning a basketball game comes down to maximizing each possession and creating more possessions for your team while limiting possessions and making them inefficient for the other team.
At its core, the goal of any team or player on defense is to end the opponent’s possession without surrendering any points. There’s various defensive events that can occur or be generated to help accomplish this objective, and the following major ones are currently tracked: turnovers, steals, offensive fouls, deflections, contests, blocks, and rebounds. Each of these events have varying defensive value:
- Turnovers: turnovers encompass multiple defensive events, such as steals or drawing offensive fouls, but also things like stepping out of bounds or bad passes or recovery of a loose ball. Turnovers are very valuable because they end the opponents’ possession without sacrificing points and often lead to transition opportunities or the accrual of fouls.
- Steals: these are consistently the most valuable defensive events because they immediately end the opponents’ possession, sacrifice no points, have a demoralizing component, and often create a transition opportunity on offense. Over the last decade plus, offenses have scored 1.04 points per possession in transition versus 0.87 points per possession in the half-court. Additionally, with the new take-foul rule in place that grants a free throw plus possession for a foul in transition, steals will likely become even more advantageous on average.
- Offensive fouls: drawing a charge or illegal screen are the most common offensive fouls. Individually, they are generally not quite as valuable as steals because they don’t create transition opportunities, but their value can exceed steals as the opposing team gets into foul trouble and generates free throws (1.3 points per possession on average).
- Deflections: deflections disrupt opposing offenses, eat up valuable time, and often lead to steals and offensive fouls.
- Contests: getting hands raised in front of a shooter can be valuable to alter shots or discourage players from taking them in the first place, and can also result in blocks.
- Blocks: blocks force a missed shot and can be especially valuable when the rebound is secured immediately afterwards. Blocks are also demoralizing and can be an effective way to coerce teams into taking less efficient shots.
- Rebounds: these end the opponent’s possession without sacrificing points and often lead to transition opportunities.
While these tracked defensive events are often markers of a good defense, the statistics themselves do not always have meaningful probative value, as previously illustrated in Zach Kram’s article. Instead, understanding how these tracked events are generated is often more important than the event itself, and that is where cognitive athleticism manifests.
For example, you might have two players who generate a high number of steals and therefore rate favorably on various defensive metrics. Assume Player A generates steals because he consistently anticipates passes and intercepts them due to good positioning and anticipation, while Player B generates a lot of steals because he gambles on the perimeter and is often successful in getting possession of the ball due to his long arms. While both players generate steals, Player B sacrifices good positioning to do so and may create multiple disadvantaged possessions for his team between acquiring each steal. Defensive metrics struggle to capture this important distinction; all we see is that a steal was generated.
Additionally, there are many defensive events that are not tracked at all or cannot reasonably be tracked, making the effects of cognitive athleticism even less visible to the untrained eye. A player who is consistently in the right position to create opportunities for defensive events, for example, may never generate a single steal, deflection, block, or turnover and yet can still be a quality defender. That’s because the impact of a player on defense is far more complicated to determine than simply looking at a box score. You have to understand the details of each and every possession – the offensive scheme, the personnel executing it and their effectiveness in doing so, the defensive scheme, the defender’s role in that scheme, and how effective all five players are at executing – which all must be taken into account. It’s a monumental task that requires both sophisticated basketball knowledge and a lot of repetition, and no one person has the bandwidth to do this across the entire league. Thankfully, there are physical and mental traits that can help us prognosticate a player’s aptitude and tendencies on defense across a variety of situations. Just as the trained eye can sense that certain offensive players are or will be gifted playmakers, we can identify gifted defensive playmakers by learning what to look for.
Defensive Athleticism
Every player leverages three types of athleticism when they play basketball: hard, soft, and cognitive – as illustrated and discussed by Thinking Basketball’s Ben Taylor.
Hard and soft athleticism, often described as physical tools, are essential to be effective on both sides of the floor. In the defensive context, players who have long limbs, can jump high, can change direction and speed quickly while maintaining balance, are mobile and also immovable, and/or can be highly active for long periods of time are typically more likely to have a consistently positive impact on defense.
That’s because defensive activity most commonly occurs in reaction to the opponent. And while defensive schemes are often pre-planned as a result of good scouting and coaching, players are put in positions to react to the others currently on the floor in order to maximize the team’s defensive impact against that unit. For example, players involved defensively in a pick and roll action react to the screen: the on-ball defender attempts to navigate the screen and regain defensive position on the ball-handler, while the screener’s defender either blitzes the ball-handler, or drops back as the screener rolls, or does whatever else may be called for by the defensive scheme and the offensive action being executed. Hard and soft athleticism are especially helpful in reactive defense, as they can minimize recovery time and allow for quicker rotations to diminish any advantages created by the offense.
Cognitive athleticism, on the other hand, allows defenders to flip the script. Instead of just reacting on defense, defenders use cognitive athleticism to become proactive, anticipating the future to create defensive events. Cognitive athleticism is commonly referred to as “feel” or, more clumsily, as “basketball IQ,” though it has little to do with intelligence. Rather, according to Ben Taylor and SIS Hoops’ Evan Zaucha, cognitive athleticism is made up of four parts: pattern recognition, spatial awareness, anticipation, and cognitive load. Each of these combine and overlap to help a defender generate a “feel” for defense that allows them to accurately forecast what the offense is going to do and when. These same four parts apply for offensive playmakers as well.
Pattern recognition is the ability to identify plays or actions and the tendencies of the personnel running them. While there are certainly players who naturally excel in this area, all players can develop their pattern recognition through repetition of actions and diligent film study. Prescient defenders will often know a play call before it is executed, an opposing player’s favorite spots to shoot, or what hand or side they favor on a drive. Players that excel in pattern recognition consistently study different players and actions so they can access that information in real time during a game. Here’s a simple example the internet had way too much fun with:
And here’s Alex Caruso describing Jayson Tatum’s tendencies to JJ Redick:
Spatial awareness is often described as court vision. It’s knowing where everyone is on the floor at all times and where they are going to be in the near future. This knowledge can help an offensive player know how fast to throw a pass or when to accept or reject a screen. Defensively, it allows a player to identify optimal positioning or recognize and call out an impending breakdown in a rotating defense. Caruso exemplifies this concept with his impeccable timing and positioning on this sequence:
Anticipation is the ability to expect or predict something that has yet to happen. This cognitive ability allows an offensive player to throw a pass to an empty spot on the floor that will soon be occupied by his teammate. Defensively, players use anticipation to know where they need to be positioned to intercept a pass that hasn’t yet been made to an off-ball cutter, or to avoid getting screened, or to swipe a hand at an opposing ball-handler:
Finally, cognitive load is akin to mental stamina. It’s a player’s ability to maintain their processing speed throughout an entire game or series without significant dropoff. Just as physical conditioning is required to play sustained NBA minutes, great defensive playmakers require consistent exercise of their cognitive athleticism to maintain their prognostic bandwidth:
The havoc that Caruso creates every possession he’s in the game is a testament to this conditioning. Every second that he spends blowing up a screen, or negating a created advantage, or deflecting a pass, or getting between the ball-handler and their intended target, translates into less time to score and a less efficient offense for the opposing team. Basketball players play best when they are in rhythm; Caruso makes sure his targets never get comfortable by anticipating their every move. Caruso also impacts winning by erasing his teammates’ mistakes and allowing them to play more aggressively within a given scheme because of the additional margin for error that he provides with his elite blend of hard, soft, and cognitive athleticism. His 1st Team All-Defense award was well-deserved this last season.
Cognitive athleticism can also help defenders who don’t possess more traditional physical athletic traits and are often overlooked or undervalued as a result. Nikola Jokic is a great example of a player whose defensive impact is difficult to pinpoint with available metrics and who does not pop off the screen on that end of the floor. Jokic is lanky, but he’s not especially bouncy or quick. He does, however, use his incredible cognitive athleticism to his advantage, using spatial awareness and anticipation to plod right into the correct positions at the right time, and using his pattern recognition to vocally quarterback the defense for his teammates. His coach, Michael Malone, describes how Jokic’s cognitive athleticism impacts his team’s defense:
Malone is right: a lot of this stuff isn’t readily apparent using the eye test unless you know what you’re looking for, nor does it appear on any stat sheet, so box-score-based defensive analytics cannot reliably predict it. Consider these two sequences where Alex Caruso guards Devin Booker; Caruso becomes an agent of chaos on defense for nearly 30 seconds, anticipating Booker’s every twitch and tendency to cause him to take two low-quality shots, but there’s no recorded defensive stat to reflect that reality:
That doesn’t mean the impact is not felt. Having an elite defensive playmaker on an NBA team roster can keep almost any team afloat defensively. Having two can completely transform it. The best recent example of this is the 2021-22 Chicago Bulls who, despite deploying the defensively milquetoast Zach LaVine, DeMar DeRozan, and Nikola Vucevic, had a league-best defensive rating when Alex Caruso and Lonzo Ball, both of whom are elite defensive playmakers, shared the floor with them or when both of them were on the floor with any other lineup. With them off the floor, the Bulls had the worst defensive rating in the league. Not only did they flip the script on defense, their defensive playmaking and pinpoint passing juiced Chicago’s transition offense to league-best efficiency in points per possession on transition opportunities.
Identifying Cognitive Athleticism
But far too often, however, the impact of cognitively athletic defenders is not adequately recognized by large parts of the basketball community. A center with hard and soft athleticism that racks up blocks, for example, may be commonly viewed as defensively impactful because he pops off the screen. But if he’s chasing blocks while being out of position, or if opponents get into the paint at a higher rate because he’s not rotating correctly, the impact metrics can sometimes be overstated or deceiving. A center who is constantly in the right spot or rotating with precision may not get the opportunity to block as many shots because opposing players are deterred from ever getting to the paint in the first place, which is far more conducive to winning but harder to pin down on paper. Having an awareness of these factors can help us understand why both people and defensive metrics are so split on the defensive impact of players like Nikola Jokic, or why the little things Alex Caruso does often go unnoticed or underappreciated for so long.
Next time you watch a player on defense this season, try and focus on identifying traits of cognitive athleticism. Or when you scan for the aforementioned defensive events, identify how the player generated the statistic. For example, when a defensive player gets screened, look for their footwork and positioning before, during, and after a screen is set. When a player gets a rebound, watch that player’s timing, positioning, anticipation, and box-outs that lead to the rebound. Were they just lucky, or did they create the defensive event through their proactivity? As always, metrics and statistics can be incredibly useful in evaluation, but they should primarily be used as tools to generate good questions rather than provide definitive answers. If a player generally thought to be a poor defender rates highly in one or across multiple defensive metrics, that should pique your interest, and vice versa. Don’t just take numbers at face value, investigate them.
As we learn to recognize how cognitive athleticism manifests on defense, we’ll be able to better identify good defenders at all levels of the sport. Perhaps someday soon we’ll have metrics that can accurately measure how well a defender anticipates a pass or avoids a screen, but until then, as Tom Thibodeau loves to say, the magic is in the work.
Tags:
Related Podcasts
No items foundRelated Articles
