Just Google sets vs actions in basketball
To me sets are a sequence of actions with predefined choice points. (Do you define them differently?) I think both have their places.
Actions:
Actions are much smaller making them easier to learn.
Actions are much easier to "mix up".
Actions are usually simpler because there
tend to be fewer moving pieces at once. e.g. This is a 2-man game, this is an iso.
It is often easier to mix personnel with actions than sets.
Sets:
IMO Sets trade dynamic simplicity and "infinite" variations, for timing gains and stability.
Timing gains (sets):
By virtue of being a sequence of action with known choice points, everyone on the team can start into the next action (often multiple simultaneous actions) at the same time vs. having to make an on the fly read of what the ball handler chose next, and then deciding what they should do next.
This reduction in mental processing time enables additional wrinkles such as very precise timing pass opportunities that arise due to the prior action pulling a defender a certain way; e.g. those pretty cut baskets some teams always seem to get. While these sequences are possible with pure actions, they are much harder to pull off.
Compare:
- After X happens, I do Z
- X occurred. What is the ball handler doing next? (pause). The ball handler chose Y (read), so I'll do Z (decision). Each of these takes time. Meanwhile the ball handler has to check "did they choose A, B, C, or Z?" (time to check) They chose Z. Great. Are we on time for that cut pass? (another read, and the timing is much less likely).
Stability gains (sets):
Another advantage of sets is that they are "muscle memory." This makes them good for when the team is rattled and decision making is poor -- both in selection of actions, and reading of actions. Sets say just do what you know, for 10-15s. Calm down. Reset. This is the case where I think this team would benefit the most from sets.
Predictability disadvantage (sets):
As observed, if you run the same set frequently, teams can learn the branch points and defensive sequences. If they are used in a few spots, teams both have less time to learn them during the game, and less incentive to practice against them pre-game.
Learning time tradeoff (sets):
Coaches often then say "if we don't use them often, they aren't worth the practice time to learn." I think having a few is worth it for the stability if nothing else. Other coaches use them as a staple. They can help make up for less athletic members (e.g. WI under Bo.)
[Edit: fix two bad grammar mistakes.]
fightingillini.com
