When I played basketball, one of the cardinal sins was to give up the baseline on defense. In the NBA, however, "defenders" seem to overplay the high side and give up the baseline. Why? Is it because there are supposed to be shot-blockers awaiting? Or are they just lousy defenders?!
Two reasons: 1) If a player goes baseline, he has much less room to operate. Then you can use the baseline as an extra defender, either forcing him out of bounds or forcing him to make a bad pass. If the player gets into the middle of the floor, he can see the floor better. That's why everyone here hates it when Steve goes baseline so much. 2) If a player goes baseline, he's essentially behind the backboard, which means a reverse layup is the only shot available
The problem is. . .nowadays players are getting bailed out far too much in these situations. Blocking fouls or pushing them out of bounds is called so much that forcing someone baseline is more dangerous for the defender than the offensive player. Rocket River
In my day, giving up the baseline was a beeline to the hoop. That's why we overplayed the baseline because the baseline did act as another defender and forced the ball back towards the top rather than towards the hoop. But giving up the baseline puts the O past the D and on the way to the Hoop. We were taught to have a foot out of bounds if necessary so as to make going baseline impossible. There was always help on the topside.
