Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Looking Down The Road (Players Edition)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Axel wrote: View Post
    Vino said you need a legit C to throw the ball into during the playoffs, as opposed to a Kenneth Farried type big, which I had previously posted as the new proto-type in the evolving NBA center position. My point was that, for the playoffs, you don't need a traditional center to throw the ball into, but rather a post scorer (ie David West on the low block or a high post guy like Dirk) that commands the double team.

    The offensive rebounding would come from the Kenneth Farried type athletic center playing next to the scorer (David West for this example).
    No, that's not what I said. What I said was "you are at tremendous advantage as a team if you have a legit C, who you could throw a ball to at half court play and this is particularly true when it matters the most." just to explain this further... the advantage comes because, as you've mentioned, many teams don't have a legit 7 footer who can play both ends of the floor at a high level. I'd much rather throw the ball into a capable 7 footer (hopefully Jonas), rather than a player like David West... simply because on most nights there will be no one who could guard him. Or if there is a defensive type big; he'd be a detriment for his team on offense, so Jonas (in this case) could help and protect the rim more effectively/efficiently.

    The league is shifting to the smaller, faster Cs due to necessity and not by choice. Of course Jonas has to stay with the faster, often shorter athletic dudes like Faried on transition D - no one questions that.

    Comment


    • #32
      vino wrote: View Post
      No, that's not what I said. What I said was "you are at tremendous advantage as a team if you have a legit C, who you could throw a ball to at half court play and this is particularly true when it matters the most." just to explain this further... the advantage comes because, as you've mentioned, many teams don't have a legit 7 footer who can play both ends of the floor at a high level. I'd much rather throw the ball into a capable 7 footer (hopefully Jonas), rather than a player like David West... simply because on most nights there will be no one who could guard him. Or if there is a defensive type big; he'd be a detriment for his team on offense, so Jonas (in this case) could help and protect the rim more effectively/efficiently.

      The league is shifting to the smaller, faster Cs due to necessity and not by choice. Of course Jonas has to stay with the faster, often shorter athletic dudes like Faried on transition D - no one questions that.
      If there was a game tonight and you had the final possession for the win, would you rather have David West or JV in the post with the ball in his hands?

      For me, that player is West today and tomorrow, maybe JV in a couple of seasons if he develops like we want. I don't think JV being 7' gives him any advantage over West's footwork, strong base and soft touch.

      I think the league is making a choice. No one forced the teams of the 90s to start Bill Cartwright, but they still did. For many years teams rolled out 7' centers who shouldn't have been on the court (Loren Woods anyone?) because every team felt that they needed a 7' foot player to protect the rim.

      While the need to protect the rim hasn't gone anywhere, the need for team defences to cover the entire baseline from corner to corner to prevent the 3 is growing. NBA teams are shooting the 3 more than previously.

      Excerpt from an article I found while looking for the stats on 3pt shots.
      "When Reggie Miller entered the N.B.A. in 1987 as a skinny rookie with a high-arcing jump shot, about 1 of every 18 field-goal attempts in the league was a 3-pointer. This season, 3-pointers represented almost 1 of every 4 shots taken." ~ http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/26/sp...anted=all&_r=0

      As 3pt shots have risen, teams have made the decision to employ more 3 point shooters on their roster than ever would have been conceived 10-15 years ago. As such, team defences will need to evolve to counter such. Having a rim protector is simply a luxury that many teams wont be able to employ. The corner 3 and at the rim are the 2 best shots in basketball, both along the baseline that will force defences to guard the entire width of the court, putting more pressure on the backline anchor on defence (typically the C position since they can see the most of the court being at the back of the action).
      Heir, Prince of Cambridge

      If you see KeonClark in the wasteland, please share your food and water with him.

      Comment


      • #33
        Axel wrote: View Post
        It isn't something that can be purely quantified by something like height. Varajao is a great example. Look at his game and he would have been considered more of a PF than C in the 80s and 90s, but in the current NBA, he is a center. Kevin Garnett, Al Horford and LaMarcus Aldridge are guys who want to be PFs because they feel that is their best position, but in the current trend of NBA bigs, they are largely used at the Center position. It could be argued that KG is a better C than a PF over the last 5 years. KG bristled against coaches in Minnesota when they asked him to play C, but in Boston, he finally came to accept it. Chris Bosh went through the same thing from year 1 to now in Miami, finally accepting the fact that playing C with traditional PF traits. Both of those players realized the value of what the coaches were trying to do and I believe that it is the direction that the league is heading. The PF spot is blending with the SF spot, and the C spot is being held down by a PF.
        I'm going to disagree with you on this. We at times remember positions being 'more defined', but I don't think that was at all the case.

        Hakeem played the first 4 years (?) of his career called a 'C' beside a 7'4 'PF' named Ralph Sampson. When Hakeem won his titles he was a 'C' beside a 6'9" SF/stretch PF in Robert Horry.

        The Pistons won their titles in the late 80s/early 90s with a 250lb 7fter with range in Laimbeer, who played with 2 other 7fters in Edwards/Salley and other times an offensively questionable PF who could defend all 5 positions in Rodman.

        That blending has always existed. Positions have always been a construct used for simplicity, but I don't think if we look at the league now we see that much difference in the role of 'normal positions' as we did then because what players tended to do or be was always very diverse.

        Comment


        • #34
          Axel wrote: View Post
          If there was a game tonight and you had the final possession for the win, would you rather have David West or JV in the post with the ball in his hands?

          For me, that player is West today and tomorrow, maybe JV in a couple of seasons if he develops like we want. I don't think JV being 7' gives him any advantage over West's footwork, strong base and soft touch..

          I think the league is making a choice.
          I talked about the future, not today. Personally, I hope Jonas will be a lot more useful than West even if you compare just one attribute/part of the game - offense close to the rim; if everything else is equal... (for the purpose of this argument), there is no denial that a 7' more likely to score close to the basket than a 6'9'', who is more likely to get blocked. I hope Jonas will be a lot more useful than West in all categories.

          Axel wrote: View Post
          I think the league is making a choice.
          On that we'll just have to disagree. I think there is an overall lack of dominant, skilled 7 footers in the league today compared to the 90s, which plays to our advantage when Jonas develops to his full potential in a few years.

          Comment


          • #35
            Craiger wrote: View Post
            I'm going to disagree with you on this. We at times remember positions being 'more defined', but I don't think that was at all the case.

            Hakeem played the first 4 years (?) of his career called a 'C' beside a 7'4 'PF' named Ralph Sampson. When Hakeem won his titles he was a 'C' beside a 6'9" SF/stretch PF in Robert Horry.

            The Pistons won their titles in the late 80s/early 90s with a 250lb 7fter with range in Laimbeer, who played with 2 other 7fters in Edwards/Salley and other times an offensively questionable PF who could defend all 5 positions in Rodman.

            That blending has always existed. Positions have always been a construct used for simplicity, but I don't think if we look at the league now we see that much difference in the role of 'normal positions' as we did then because what players tended to do or be was always very diverse.
            I think you are taking a few isolated players from the 90s and comparing them to the abundance in today's NBA.

            As per the basketball reference link, there have only been 36 "individual player's seasons" where a player 6'9" or taller, attempted 3 or more 3PT per game from 1946-2000. Of that, there are only 15 players:

            Larry Bird
            Toni Kukoc
            Clifford Robinson
            Matt Bullard
            Lamar Odom
            Sam Perkins
            Donyell Marshall
            Tim Thomas
            Danny Ferry
            Robert Horry
            Keith Van Horn
            Peja Stojakovic
            Rashard Lewis
            Dirk Nowitzki
            Terry Mills

            Robert Horry did it in the 2 years you mentioned with Hakeem's Championship Rockets, but Laimbeer never attempted more than 2 per game (once) and only 4 times did he average more than 1 attempt per game, from 1988-1992.

            In comparison, there were 15 players that meet the same criteria (6'9" or taller) and attempted 3 or more 3PT per game this past season.

            http://www.basketball-reference.com/...order_by_asc=Y

            And here's an article talking to former 3pt shooting big man Clifford Robinson about how the big man role has changed in the NBA.

            http://www.sbnation.com/2013/3/14/41...cliff-robinson

            All in all, the NBA game is changing. It is played differently than it was in the 80's, 90's or even early 2000's. As the game changed, so has the roles of players. Coaches are looking at ways to spread the court further than ever before, and 3PT shooting from slots 1-5 is more and more common. Defences will have to adjust to compensate. To adjust, the traditional big man, like a Roy Hibbert, is going to become even more rare. Having JV is a gift for Raptors fans, but the team needs to recognize how the game is changing and ensure that they build a team around him that doesn't neglect the NBA trend.
            Heir, Prince of Cambridge

            If you see KeonClark in the wasteland, please share your food and water with him.

            Comment


            • #36
              Bill Russell on the myth of the disappearing big man (April, 2013):

              NBA.com: When you look at the evolution of some of the positions now, do you agree with the suggestion of some people that the traditional big man is one that seems to have really changed with the stretch fours and 7-footers that don’t play on the low block?

              BR: That’s a fallacy. The way the game’s played, when you have a unique player, whatever his position is, that’s where the game is going. When I was a kid growing up there was a guy named Hank Luisetti played at Stanford and he’s the first player to shoot one-handed with great success. I remember reading something at that time where a coach said if he ever catches one of his players shooting with one hand, they’ll never play another minute. But things change. And if you get a great player at any position, the game is copycat. Nowadays, your star is always your shooting guard. But if you come with a center that can really play, the game will revolve around the center. Or if you have a [power forward] who can really play, the game revolves around him. So the game changes according to who is playing. I have this thought, you never get to a place where you ask a player to play against a ghost … past, present or future. You can only play against the people that show up when you play. And so how you dominate that era, that’s the only thing you can say. Now if you’re talking about scoring, you can’t get past Wilt Chamberlain, so what they do nowadays is they ignore what Wilt Chamberlain did. They don’t even bring it up. The fact that one season he averaged 50 points a game. His average. So you now you talk about guys scoring 30 points or 35 points. And that’s a long way from his average. You talk about assists, Oscar [Robertson] averaged a triple-double. And now they’re talking about a double-double. So what you are doing is choosing which stats you want to emphasize and make that most important. The people that decide that really don’t know what’s going on. You talk about rebounding. Wilt averaged 22.9 rebounds for 14 years. Averaging almost 23 if you round it off, for 14 seasons. Now the leading rebounder might have average 12 or 13. Wilt and myself had over 20,000 rebounds. That’s 20,000 one at a time. If you’re going to talk about numbers, it has nothing to do with anything. It’s about how you dominate your contemporaries in the game. People that say look at the numbers, that means they don’t know what they are looking at. A guy can play and almost never do his numbers indicate how good he is. You have to watch him and see what he does. Is he a positive part of the equation for your team?


              http://hangtime.blogs.nba.com/2013/0...-men-and-more/
              "We're playing in a building." -- Kawhi Leonard

              Comment


              • #37
                What Russell says about you play however you need to play to fit your talent is very true - Spolestra figured this out with Lebron in Miami in a way that Mike Brown never did in Cleveland. Also the Spurs, Grizz, and Pacers (3 of the final 4) play to their talents - which happen to include core, and very traditional, big men.

                Other than the variety of ways to approach the game, the old "inside-out" offensive approach is no longer the default way to play basketball. I think that adds to the sense that the game isn't for big men any more. The effect of the 3 point shot has finally truly permeated the game, and more recent hand-checking rules have made outside-in more of the default. But ultimately, as Russel noted, (good) teams figure out strategies to fit their personnel. Popovich has been an absolute genius at evolving the Spurs systems over the years to do exactly that.

                I read somewhere this past year (and I can't find a link for the life of me) that there are actually more big men playing more minutes at a higher level (I think measured with PER) than ever before in the history of the game. We tend to remember Wilt and Russell and Kareem and forget that stiffs fill out any roster in any era, and that there have been and there currently are some great big men in the league (Shaq, Duncan, Dwight, Yao...even the Gasols, and we'll see about the next generation, which looks very promising).
                Last edited by S.R.; Fri Aug 23, 2013, 10:19 PM.
                "We're playing in a building." -- Kawhi Leonard

                Comment


                • #38
                  S.R. wrote: View Post
                  Bill Russell on the myth of the disappearing big man (April, 2013):...

                  http://hangtime.blogs.nba.com/2013/0...-men-and-more/
                  Nice find. I have all the time in the world for Bill Russell talking.

                  Glad he mentioned Wilt. Averaging 50 points a game for a season. And averaging more than 23 rebounds a game for 13 seasons. Unbelievabe.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Puffer wrote: View Post
                    Nice find. I have all the time in the world for Bill Russell talking.

                    Glad he mentioned Wilt. Averaging 50 points a game for a season. And averaging more than 23 rebounds a game for 13 seasons. Unbelievabe.
                    They are crazy numbers (I think he averaged 50-25 one year), but you have to remember what era he was playing in and how he was able to play.

                    The year he averaged 50.4ppg, his true shooting percentage was only 53.6% which is pretty mediocre for a big man (Dwight comparatively is usually around 60% --- 59.8% for his career). Wilt was taking 39.5 shots per game, which is more than double what guys like Kevin Durant, James Harden and LeBron took this year.

                    The pace of the league was also much different back then. For example, Wilt's Warriors averaged 125.4 points per game (Denver led the league with 106.1ppg this year). Also Chamberlain was a FREAK in terms of height. He was 7'1 and 275lbs, and the next tallest players on his team (Ruklick and Radovich) were 6'9 and 6'8 and played a combined total of less than 15 minutes per game (compared to Wilt's 48.5). The next biggest regular rotation player was Tom Meschery at 6'6 215lbs... so it's kinda easy to see how Wilt would be grabbing that many rebounds.

                    Edit: Not sure how statistically useful this will be but, I'm gonna try and adjust Wilt's stats for current pace and regular playing time.

                    So his raw stats in 1961-62 were:
                    - 50.4ppg
                    - 25.7rpg
                    - 39.5 field goal attempts

                    He did this in 48.5 minutes per game. If we adjust this to typical minutes for a top-flight center (36 or so --- Dwight played 35.8 last year), we have:
                    - 37.4ppg
                    - 19.1ppg
                    - 29.3 field goal attempts

                    Now this is the part that's kind of arbitrary, but the Warriors that year were the top scoring team with 125.4ppg and the Nuggets this year averaged 106.1ppg, so that's a ratio of 1.18. If we divide Wilt's stats by that ratio we have:
                    - 31.6ppg
                    - 16.2ppg
                    - 24.8 field goal attempts

                    Now obviously these numbers are still ridiculous. But if we take into account the number of shots he's taking and the fact that he was by far the biggest player on the court and basically decades ahead of his time athletically, it's not hard to see why he was able to do it.
                    Last edited by Xixak; Sat Aug 24, 2013, 03:58 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      I'm not a guy for using current stats to evaluate much anyway, but you certainly can't look at stats from back then and relate them to today. Different worlds.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Xixak wrote: View Post
                        They are crazy numbers (I think he averaged 50-25 one year), but you have to remember what era he was playing in and how he was able to play.

                        The year he averaged 50.4ppg, his true shooting percentage was only 53.6% which is pretty mediocre for a big man (Dwight comparatively is usually around 60% --- 59.8% for his career). Wilt was taking 39.5 shots per game, which is more than double what guys like Kevin Durant, James Harden and LeBron took this year.

                        The pace of the league was also much different back then. For example, Wilt's Warriors averaged 125.4 points per game (Denver led the league with 106.1ppg this year). Also Chamberlain was a FREAK in terms of height. He was 7'1 and 275lbs, and the next tallest players on his team (Ruklick and Radovich) were 6'9 and 6'8 and played a combined total of less than 15 minutes per game (compared to Wilt's 48.5). The next biggest regular rotation player was Tom Meschery at 6'6 215lbs... so it's kinda easy to see how Wilt would be grabbing that many rebounds.

                        Edit: Not sure how statistically useful this will be but, I'm gonna try and adjust Wilt's stats for current pace and regular playing time.

                        So his raw stats in 1961-62 were:
                        - 50.4ppg
                        - 25.7rpg
                        - 39.5 field goal attempts

                        He did this in 48.5 minutes per game. If we adjust this to typical minutes for a top-flight center (36 or so --- Dwight played 35.8 last year), we have:
                        - 37.4ppg
                        - 19.1ppg
                        - 29.3 field goal attempts

                        Now this is the part that's kind of arbitrary, but the Warriors that year were the top scoring team with 125.4ppg and the Nuggets this year averaged 106.1ppg, so that's a ratio of 1.18. If we divide Wilt's stats by that ratio we have:
                        - 31.6ppg
                        - 16.2ppg
                        - 24.8 field goal attempts

                        Now obviously these numbers are still ridiculous. But if we take into account the number of shots he's taking and the fact that he was by far the biggest player on the court and basically decades ahead of his time athletically, it's not hard to see why he was able to do it.
                        Certainly appreciate what you are trying to do here, but if we are trying to relate it to todays game, we need to consider other factors as well. For instance you mention he averaged 48.5 minutes a game, in an era when the scoring pace was significantly higher. That speaks to conditioning. And Wilt managed this during a time when off-season work was usually partying harder, because there were no no early morning bus rides to the next game. If Wilt had had access to current training regimens, coaching staffs, strength and conditioning coaches, it is hard to say what he would have accomplished. At age 36, his last year in the league he was still playing 43 minutes a game and pulled down 18.6 rebounds and scored 13.5 points. So he averaged a double double at 36, after 14 years in the league. Plus he made 4.5 assists. I wonder hw many point guards in the league that year didn't make 4.5 assists.

                        His last year was in 1973 and he was playing against Kareem, Nate Thurmond, Dave Cowens and Wes Unseld. He still had the highest True Shooting % in the league. He had the third highest Offensive win Shares as well as the third highest Defensive Win Shares in the league.

                        I have to agree with p00ka, that it is pretty hard to translate #'s from one era to another. It's just hat chamberlain was a total phenom. No player has dominated during his career the way that Wilt did, and so far, having watched him play (though infrequently given TV coverage limitations back then) I haven't seen a player come close; not Jordan, not Kobe, not James, no one. Taking nothing away from those three players, but there is no comparison.

                        Having said all that, I doubt that Chamberlain would dominate as completely today, because the NBA draws form all over the world, and back then it was pretty much strictly a US of A party. Bigger talent pool in todays world. And I think Wilt was such a physical specimen that modern training and coaching would have only made incremental improvements in his game, whereas I think it can have a larger impact on people who aren't complete freaks of nature, so the performance gap between him and other players would have been less. But still...It sure would be interesting to see him in todays game, with current training methods and coaching. I wonder what Popovich could have done with a player like a modern version of Wilt.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          S.R. wrote: View Post
                          Bill Russell on the myth of the disappearing big man (April, 2013):

                          NBA.com: When you look at the evolution of some of the positions now, do you agree with the suggestion of some people that the traditional big man is one that seems to have really changed with the stretch fours and 7-footers that don’t play on the low block?

                          BR: That’s a fallacy. The way the game’s played, when you have a unique player, whatever his position is, that’s where the game is going. When I was a kid growing up there was a guy named Hank Luisetti played at Stanford and he’s the first player to shoot one-handed with great success. I remember reading something at that time where a coach said if he ever catches one of his players shooting with one hand, they’ll never play another minute. But things change. And if you get a great player at any position, the game is copycat. Nowadays, your star is always your shooting guard. But if you come with a center that can really play, the game will revolve around the center. Or if you have a [power forward] who can really play, the game revolves around him. So the game changes according to who is playing. I have this thought, you never get to a place where you ask a player to play against a ghost … past, present or future. You can only play against the people that show up when you play. And so how you dominate that era, that’s the only thing you can say. Now if you’re talking about scoring, you can’t get past Wilt Chamberlain, so what they do nowadays is they ignore what Wilt Chamberlain did. They don’t even bring it up. The fact that one season he averaged 50 points a game. His average. So you now you talk about guys scoring 30 points or 35 points. And that’s a long way from his average. You talk about assists, Oscar [Robertson] averaged a triple-double. And now they’re talking about a double-double. So what you are doing is choosing which stats you want to emphasize and make that most important. The people that decide that really don’t know what’s going on. You talk about rebounding. Wilt averaged 22.9 rebounds for 14 years. Averaging almost 23 if you round it off, for 14 seasons. Now the leading rebounder might have average 12 or 13. Wilt and myself had over 20,000 rebounds. That’s 20,000 one at a time. If you’re going to talk about numbers, it has nothing to do with anything. It’s about how you dominate your contemporaries in the game. People that say look at the numbers, that means they don’t know what they are looking at. A guy can play and almost never do his numbers indicate how good he is. You have to watch him and see what he does. Is he a positive part of the equation for your team?


                          http://hangtime.blogs.nba.com/2013/0...-men-and-more/
                          I don't think Bill Russell's comments really speak to the NBA trend what-so-ever. He really doesn't answer the question in a macro sense, but instead focuses on the unique player that changes everything. Wilt Chamberlain is not the norm, and there will likely never be another Wilt. So while teams are waiting on the chance of acquiring that unique, landscape changing unique talent, they are mostly going to follow the trend, and the NBA trend is shoot the 3, defend the 3. Traditional bigs can't cover corner to corner on help to prevent that 3, and unless the big is dominating offensively, rebounding, and rim protection, I think more and more teams are going to go smaller and more athletic to adjust their defence.
                          The liability isn't worth it unless the production in other areas is significant enough to warrant the defensive risk. So teams will constantly be looking for the next big man to dominate the next era, but in the meantime, athleticism is going to be the number 1 criteria for the center position over the next 5-10 years.

                          Here's a link via 82games.com showing that the corner 3 is the most productive shot in basketball, even more than right at the rim.
                          http://www.82games.com/locations.htm
                          Last edited by Axel; Mon Aug 26, 2013, 07:49 AM. Reason: Added link
                          Heir, Prince of Cambridge

                          If you see KeonClark in the wasteland, please share your food and water with him.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Axel wrote: View Post
                            ...He really doesn't answer the question in a macro sense, but instead focuses on the unique player that changes everything. Wilt Chamberlain is not the norm, and there will likely never be another Wilt. So while teams are waiting on the chance of acquiring that unique, landscape changing unique talent, they are mostly going to follow the trend, and the NBA trend is shoot the 3, defend the 3. Traditional bigs can't cover corner to corner on help to prevent that 3, and unless the big is dominating offensively, rebounding, and rim protection, I think more and more teams are going to go smaller and more athletic to adjust their defence....
                            Right on. I wonder if real talent will get missed because teams get constructed certain ways and the trend is to play a certain way. I expect not. With the scouting and analysis out there, talent will be outed. As Russell alludes to, "...when you have a unique player, whatever his position is, that’s where the game is going."

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Puffer wrote: View Post
                              Right on. I wonder if real talent will get missed because teams get constructed certain ways and the trend is to play a certain way. I expect not. With the scouting and analysis out there, talent will be outed. As Russell alludes to, "...when you have a unique player, whatever his position is, that’s where the game is going."
                              I doubt any talent will get missed any more than it is today. Players are scouted from 14 years old sometimes, and international players are in camps from even earlier. As much as the mathematics is driving the 3pt trend, no one is going to be willing to miss out on the next big thing. Maybe the next trend is big guards (ala Magic Johnson) and using zone help behind them to negate the speed of smaller guards, while taking advantage of PG post-up. Who knows, but if LeBron came out an insisted he was a PG and not a SF, then maybe we'd be there. Superstar talent will change the game, but right now, the trend is the 3 & D.
                              Heir, Prince of Cambridge

                              If you see KeonClark in the wasteland, please share your food and water with him.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                I agree that the superstar talent changes the game. There were many dominant centers back in the early 90's when I started watching basketball, and these guys (for the most part) were the focus of their teams systems. Robinson, Hakeem, Ewing, Sabonis, Divac, Mutombo, Mourning, Smits and then Shaq came along as well. In order for teams to deal with these big guys they had to load up on players that could defend them. Jordan's Bulls had the three headed monster, I can't remember their names, in order to deal with some of the dominant big guys in the league. GM's built their teams to either have a dominant C or to deal with one. That was the trend and was necessary because of the number of really good C's that could be the #1 or 2 guy on a team. However, more GM's probably should have just designed their clubs to deal with Jordan's Bulls, who despite not having a dominant C, dominated the league. Just think of all the big men back in the '90's that got a shot but never really should have, and probably only did so because of Shaq's dominance (Jim McIlvaine, spelling is wrong I'm sure, of the Sonics stands out the most in my mind).

                                These days there are fewer dominant C's (although there are still quite a few good C's) but the guys that tend to dominate the game and thus set the trend for team building are Lebron and Durant types. These guys are taller and more athletic than the norm (for their position), and thus teams have to be built to deal with these types of players and the systems they employ. That doesn't necessarily mean you have to have a dominant C to compete with them. However, that being said, the presence of a dominant C would certainly provide an advantage over both the Heat and the Thunder, and no doubt Miami recognized this and is now taking a chance on Oden for the upcoming season. If there were more Dwight Howard types in the league right now, there would be more of priority at finding players that can match him, or at least, deal with him on the defensive end. Of course, if there were more of those types of players, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X