Why does nobody try the BOND strategy in basketball?

Here’s something that I’ve been kicking around for awhile:

Suppose you’re a basketball coach who has a player who is great on offense but a woeful defender.  This is a common enough combination at all levels of the game, although it’s probably manifested in more extreme forms below the highest levels (see below).

Now suppose the other team doesn’t feature any player with a similarly extreme split between offensive and defensive ability.

Why not park your player — let’s call him Big O No D or BOND — under the other team’s basket when the opponent has the ball?  The theory here is that BOND is bad enough on defense that the gains to be gotten from either:

(a) Cherry picking baskets, i.e., baskets from firing the ball down to him as soon as his teammates have gotten it back; or

(b) Forcing the opponent to commit somebody to staying in his general vicinity when the opponent has the ball;

will outweigh the losses suffered from those occasions when BOND’s team is forced to play 4 on 5 defense, when the other team leaves BOND unguarded.

One reason this seems to me to be a potentially rational strategy under the right circumstances is that two analogous games — soccer and ice hockey — have formal offside rules designed precisely to make it impossible to execute this approach.  This is the case even though in both of those sports, unlike in basketball, a defender is always left behind to guard the goal when a team has possession of the ball (the goalkeeper/goalie).

I realize the analogy is imperfect because soccer fields are much larger than basketball courts and hockey is Canadian or something, but still, why doesn’t anybody ever try this? Or at least I’ve never seen it tried.

Speaking of which I suspect the BOND strategy might work better at lower levels of the game, where general levels of athleticism aren’t anywhere close to what they are in the NBA. For one thing very high overall athletic ability allows for much faster transitions from offense to defense. For another, at lower levels radical splits between the offensive and defensive abilities of particular players may be more common — if you’re a good enough athlete to play in the NBA how bad can you really be on defense anyway, even if you sometimes don’t try too hard? (To be fair Harden has gotten a lot better on defense since this montage was produced).

Yet another reason to suspect that the BOND strategy would be better suited to less advanced levels of the game is that professional coaches and players would surely be far more effective at exploiting 5 on 4 situations in the half court offense than, say, your typical high school team.

So I’m not saying the Golden State Warriors ought to go out and implement this strategic breakthrough right away or something.  But somebody should.

*I dribbled this idea off a loved one who played basketball at a pretty high level, and her reaction was essentially: that’s not basketball.  She is very far from a reactionary in non-basketball matters, but I suspect her response may reflect the inherent conservatism of players and especially coaches when it comes to trying off the wall strategies. Or maybe it’s a terrible idea, but I don’t see why it wouldn’t be at least worth trying, especially by a coach whose team was struggling while playing the conventional way.