Kevin Durant is a joy to watch, but I'm a traditionalist, and I say it's Oden all the way. He'll be able to anchor the defense from day one and his offensive production in college wasn't too shabby considering he couldn't use his good hand. How would Durant have done last season without his right wrist? High-scoring super-athletic wing players sell sneakers and t-shirts, dominant big men win championships. Michael Jordan is the salient exception, but there's the point -- unless your alternative to a big man is literally the best player ever, you take the center (and, yes, Tim Duncan is a center).
« Clinton and Preschool | Main | Jukeboxes are Killing The Recording Industry »
If I Won The Lottery
22 May 2007 10:50 am
Comments (98)
How would Durant have done last season without his right wrist?
I agree with the overall gist here, but really this is not the relevant question we should be asking. The right one, of course, is: how much would Oden have done with his right wrist? I think the Durant fans believe the answer is "not very much more." I think they're very wrong.
Another nice aspect to Oden: You won't wake up to a story he kicked a whore down a set of stairs leaving a rap recording session, fled the scene in his Escalade (with full crew in tow) only to get pulled over and jailed after discovery of crack, marijauna and loaded AK-57s, all in hidden compartments.
I agree completely.
I'm unconvinced about Durant's prospects in the pros. I'm sure he'll be very good; let's wait and see his first year before we decide he'll be great. He's basically got Livingston's build, and that hasn't worked out so well for the Clips.
I'm not so sure that the "centers win championships" canard isn't a remnant of the pre-D'Antoni NBA. The traditional centers (Yao, Camby, Dampier/Diop and the corpse of Shaquille O'Neal) were all bounced in the first round this year. I'm willing to concede that Duncan plays center much of the time, but he also faces guys up, passes off the dribble and shoots bankers from 18 feet. Oden can't do any of that stuff and I doubt he ever will.
Oden kind of reminds me of Patrick Ewing. He has great talent, but he also seems to be something of a lead weight on your team's tempo, and I'm not sure you could construct a patient, slow-it-down, halfcourt team in today's NBA. He'll surely be a stud at the defensive end, though.
Matt,
You did better than win the lottery. You are making a living doing something you would be doing for free. You can't ask for much more than that in life.
Does anyone here have espn insider? I'm curious what the content of the Chad Ford piece on Oden is, but my guess from the teaser is that "he also seems to be something of a lead weight on your team's tempo" turns out to not be the case (at least based on workouts). Part of the point about Oden isn't that he's 7'whatever and 270 pounds or so (so is Joel Pryzbilla) but that he's *athletic* at that size.
Since it's my pet schtick, I'm just going to say that all of this, again, is somewhere between coincidence and Shaq's fault*. A look at the league's history before the early-mid 90s or so indicates that having a legit center type was no damper on a fast-paced game.
*The nutshell being that in response to a true freak of nature, personnel guys overreacted and started overemploying stiffs whose sole NBA-level skill was being heavy enough to mildly irritate Shaq, rather than just throwing their actual best post players at him and dealing with the size inequity. The players themselves contributed; in 1985, nobody blinks twice at the idea that Chris Webber, Jermaine O'Neal, Tim Duncan, Amare Stoudemire, etc. should play center.
I'd like to think that steve duncan isn't implying that Kevin Durant is the kind of guy who WOULD do crap like that. Sadly, though, the context indictates that that's exactly what he's implying. Which is too bad, because Durant is a good, good guy.
And after he spends one NBA season putting a couple of pounds on his upper body and adjusting to the pace and defensive intensity of pro ball, he is going to dominate the league for years.
The Chad Ford piece makes the following points:
1) Oden did not recover his stamina until the NCAA tournament. Now that he is in shape, he is both fast and strong.
2) Oden has an extremely good handle. He can handle point guard drills (like dribbling two balls through traffic). He can help you break the press.
3) Oden has a Milt Wagner like verticle leap. He is up over 38" inches, and regularly touches 12'3". He will be a game changing weak side shot blocker.
4) Oden is working really hard, despite the fact that he will not workout for NBA teams and will not improve his draft status. This seems to dispel rumors that Oden does not have a love for the game.
5) Oden just regained full range of motion in the past month.
My bet, if Oden has ten healthy seasons, is that he joins the pantheon of 50 best players ever.
My bet, if Oden has ten healthy seasons, is that he joins the pantheon of 50 best players ever.
Oh. My. Gawd.
I would like to think that Woody Bombay isn't implying criticism of SDI denotes a cavalier attitude about the threat of ballistic missiles. However, a careful reading of his comments indicates exactly that. Which is too bad because Greg Oden is such a great kid.
I would take Oden too, for the reason that it is easier to get a decent wing to play with Oden that it is to get a decnt big man to play with Durant. All other things equal, of course.
That said, I am not ready to proclaim anyone top 50 anything based on a season or less of college ball.
Uh Jake, just how many Titles have the Suns won during the era of "D'Antoni's NBA"?
Shaq's corpse just won one last season and Duncan is well on his way to another (contray to what you say, he is a classic big man)
As for the Bowie/Jordan comparisons yet again, remember we're talking about picks #2 and 3 there, no one disputed Akeem at #1, sure hindsight says Jordan, but the Rockets did ok and won a couple titles with him. I think Oden is a lot more Akeem than Bowie, remmeber Bowie already had foot problems in college (which given Walton's history really makes you question the Blazers)
eric, you miss my point: of course it was foolish to take a guy who had already broken his leg twice in college as the number two pick, but because we don't have foresight, no one (and i mean not one single frickin' observer) thought, for a second, that michael jordan would be as good a pro as he became.
and therefore, the idea of drafting a center over jordan made sense (per matthew's original comment), which is why portland did it (they also believed that, in clyde drexler, they had someone already on the team who had a lot of jordanesque qualities and didn't know how they would play them together).
but you can't know, which is why short of extraordinary circumstances, if i ran a team shitty enough to get one of the top 2 or 3 lottery picks, i would trade the pick to someone who is convinced that x or y will be one of the top 50 players of all time for proven talent today.
Notwithstanding the sarcasm above, I expect a healthy Oden to have a better career than Paul Arizin, Bill Walton (three seasons do not make a great career), Dolph Shayes and Wes Unseld, just to name four of the centers who made the NBA top 50 ten years ago. I think it is not unreasonable to expect that Oden would be on a par with Thurmond and Ewing. Of course, YMMV.
ephus, i'm old enough (just barely) to remember arizin and schayes.
arizin never played center; he was a forward/guard type. adolphus apparently played some center, especially in the '50s, but one of the last of the two-handed set shooters mostly played forward.
i have no judgement to make about oden one way or another but if he can outplay wes unseld, he's a damn good player, that's for sure (the conundrum of walton - do we evaluate him for his peak performance or his total career - makes him very hard to assess in historic perspective).
Dominant big men win championships--Michael Jordan is the exception.
Magic Johnson and Larry Bird will be disappointed to hear that. Also, I didn't realize Bill Laimbeer was a dominant big man when the Pistons won their titles.
I don't see a downside to Durant - huge wingspan, still growing, basketball smart, and like the man said above, a good kid. Oden, otoh, has a temper when pressed. He openly taunted a Wisconsin player at the end of the Big Ten championship game (could have been provoked into it, but like that's not going to happen in the NBA), and his shove of a player in the Tennessee (I think) game should have earned a tech that would have lost the game for them.
dominant big men win championships. Michael Jordan is the salient exception
Oh, and Larry Bird. Oh, and Dennis Johnson. Oh...and who was the dominant big man on the late-80s Pistons? And who was the dominant big man on the 2004-2005 Pistons (shut up, Rasheed Wallace fans)?
Let's walk through this... Thirty years ago, Portland won a championship with a dominant big man -- Bill Walton. In the years since, 12 different teams have won the championship. Two of those teams -- the Pistons and the Lakers -- won with totally different lineups (so its basically 14 different teams, but whatever). In neither lineup did the Pistons have a dominant big man (I said shut up, Rasheed Wallace fans).
Of those 12 teams, only 6 had really dominant big men: the 76ers (Moses Malone), the Lakers (Kareem), the Rockets (Hakeem), the Spurs (Duncan/Robinson), the Lakers (Shaq), and the Heat (Shaq). Notice that there's only 5 names on this list. Notice that only two (Hakeem and Duncan) won without a dominant guard. Shaq had Kobe and Wade, Malone had Dr. J, Kareem had Magic.
Notice also that this means that 14 championships in those years went to teams without dominant big men. 6 went to Jordan, of course, but that's less than half. Isiah Thomas & Joe Dumars got 2. Bird got 3. Dennis Johnson got 1. The other two were the Washington Bullets (with Unseld as a dominant man, and a big man, but more of a power forward) and the 2005 Pistons (with Billups the closest thing to a dominant persona on the court).
So the point is this: it's nice to have Hakeem or Tim. But on the whole, you're better off with a top-flight guard.
This is a point that needs to be made again and again.
There are three known paths to a modern (post-ABA) championship. In order of likelihood of success, they are as follows:
1) Three-pronged inside-out attack on O and a tough, competent and well-organized defense. On offense you need one dominant post player who will command double-teams from almost any defense, one high-percentage outside shooter, and an athletic third scorer who can get his own shot at any time (though he need not shoot a particularly high percentage.) Notable recent teams to use this model are San Antonio (Duncan, Parker, Finley/Ginobli), and Los Angeles (Shaq, Kobe, Rice/Fox). It's OK to invert the #2 and #3 roles (as the Lakers did, with Kobe as the #2 option) but your #1 option MUST be a post player.
2) Stifling, physical defense with one elite backcourt scorer, a decent post player, and great rebounding. This is difficult to achieve because it requires you to be at the very top of the league in several areas, but Detroit has used it effectively both in 2004 (with Rip Hamilton) and during the Bad Boys era (with Isaiah.)
3) Have Michael Jordan. (This category has expired.)
Essentially, the Durant/Oden calculation is the exact opposite of what people generally say. Durant will almost certainly be a championship puzzle piece - there's almost no way he'll actually be a bust, as it's impossible to imagine (barring injury) that he won't be able to get his shot in the NBA.
Oden, meanwhile, has more "upside" - if he becomes an elite post player in the NBA, that's the most difficult commodity to find, and the most essential to a championship under the San Antonio/LA model.
As for model #3, of course the chance exists for Durant (or any backcourt player) to become the "next Jordan" and rekindle option #3. But the chances that it will be Durant or any given player are vanishingly small. Factoring that possibility into your franchise's draft strategy is extremely foolish.
People always bring up Sam Bowie, but of course the problem with the Sam Bowie pick was that Bowie didn't work out, not that Jordan was available at that spot. The Rockets picked Olajuwan before Jordan, too, but no one brings that up as some kind of massive error, because it wasn't.
APS
Magic Johnson and Larry Bird will be disappointed to hear that.
Alright, Kareem was slipping downhill, but he was still an important factor. And McHale was one of the best forwards of all time, particularly scoring from the post, and the McHale/Parish frontline in combo...
Magic and Bird both played, individually, with better big men than if you rolled the total basketball ability of Bill Cartwright, Bill Wennington, and Luc Longley into a single body. And then there was Rodman, who wasn't in any way "big" but absolutely dominant at his chosen niche. Can't really comment on Detroit-era Rodman/Lambeer/Mahorn, but I remember in the months before his untimely death Ralph Wiley was jocking Mahorn relative to the big men in the then current playoffs (the Year KG Advanced); he and Simmons had some fun with that in their back and forth.
Time horizon has to be part of the issue on Durant/Oden. I see the Oden skill set and body type aging better than Durant. Specifically, a 7'0" perimeter player will become a defensive liability when he loses his quickness, but a 7'0" post player will be more capable of staying on the floor on defense even after he loses his quickness.
Of course, the teams drafting these guys might have only a seven year timeline (rookie contract plus four year extension), in which case the issue is not as clearly presented.
Bird was the leading scorer on his Celts teams, but the #1 option was to pound it into the post to Parrish and McHale. You work it from high-percentage to low-percentage; as great as Bird was, he never shot 57% from the field.
APS
"Notice also that this means that 14 championships in those years went to teams without dominant big men. 6 went to Jordan, of course, but that's less than half. Isiah Thomas & Joe Dumars got 2. Bird got 3. Dennis Johnson got 1."
As a Celtic fan, I've got to point out that if Kevin McHale and Robert Parish don't qualify as dominant big men, who does? You could also argue that the Isiah/Dumars Pistons lacked a dominant big man but did have a collection of bigs that was pretty impressive - Laimbeer, Salley and Edwards with an athletic freak (Rodman) and a midget low-post force (Aguire).
Mike
MBunge, I know that McHale and Parrish are/were excellent players. I'm not disputing that. But they weren't "dominant big men" in the sense that Matt intends, nor in the common usage of the term. The offense did not flow through them. Plus, to the extent that McHale was an offensive power (and he was, no question) it was because he had a sweet fall-away and excellent passing skills. He wasn't the kind of guy who fought for position in the post and then shoved the other guy out of the way.
Now, I want to be completely clear about this: I prefer the way McHale plays, and wish there were more of it. I don't for a moment dispute his reputation as one of the greatest ever. I only dispute the notion that he was a "dominant big man" in the way that term is offered. I am actually arguing for the value of Durant -- who is more akin to a mobile McHale than to anyone else from that period -- over Oden (who is more of the Parish type). In short, McHale's value was that he was not the stereotypical dominant big man -- he was more mobile, more fluid, a better passer, and more deceptive.
And although Parish was great, I'd compare him more to Cartwright. There, I said it.
MBunge..
And also, the fact that "You could also argue that the Isiah/Dumars Pistons lacked a dominant big man but did have a collection of bigs that was pretty impressive" is precisely the point: i.e, the value of a single "dominant big man" is overrated.
The 1980's Celts did, in fact, run their offense through McHale and Parrish (and Walton somewhat.) Their three go-to plays were pounding into the low post, the side pick n roll with Bird and a big, and isolation plays for Bird, in that order. Bird took most of the shots because he was both the #2 AND #3 option, but the primary objective was to pound it inside.
APS
collin pretty much has it exactly right.
There was all kinds of hand-wringing in the late '80s and early '90s about where all the dominant big men had gone. It was commonly observed that all the powerhouse teams had good-but-not-great centers, and that nearly all of their best players were in the 6'6-6'9 range. Olajuwon, Ewing, and Moses Malone were seen as the last vestiges of a dying breed, and there was a lot of excitment when David Robinson was drafted for that reason - because dominant centers were so rare. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar was not a factor in the last two Lakers championships. He was, by then, a pretty bad player, probably the fourth option on offense ahead of only A.C. Green. Kevin McHale was a power forward and doesn't count.
It's also interesting that Matt justifies his preference for an Oden selection on the basis of being a "traditionalist." What a strange traditionalism. I suppose that's what comes of growing up in NYC during the Ewing Knicks: you lose the ability to rationally contemplate basketball.
By the last two Lakers championships, I mean '87 and '88 of course.
Cartwright and Parish were actually somewhat similar players in their primes; you're right about that. The main difference was Parish's prime lasted about a decade, during which time he was a key scoring option on three championship teams. Cartwright's prime was much shorter and was wasted in the service of some very mediocre Knicks teams. In that sense their careers can't really be compared.
Cartwright was a bit player on the Bulls championship teams of the early 90's. Whatever you want to say about Parish, he was never a bit player on those championship Celts teams; he was a star.
APS
steve,
Sorry if I misunderstood. I thought that since this was strictly an Oden-Durant conversation and you brought up Oden's choirboy credentials as an argument to draft him ... well, it's only common sense to assume your point was that this was an advantage Oden has over Durant.
I didn't realize you were just bringing up a completely arbitrary point that had nothing at all to do with the discussion. My bad.
The 1988 Lakers are a pretty good counterexample, I admit. Kareem was a bit player on that team. In 1987 he was still the #1 option in the offense, he was just playing fewer minutes.
APS
As far as the Oden/Durant option, this is just a great year to get stuck with the #2 pick. Probably, if I were a gm, I'd go with Oden. I love Durant and think he will be a fantastic player. He's tremendously skilled (and a consistent shooter, not just a guy who can hit the shot -- a notable difference) and would probably be NBA quality if he were six inches shorter. The fact that he's 7' just makes him a potentially historic, era transcending player. Plus, he has proven to be a gamer. So I'm not coming from a down on Durant perspective.
Odom, though, is much better than the pro-Durant crowd likes to admit. His athleticism is way underrated. The college game is played in a smaller area and Odem got the 'Shaq treatment' where he was surrounded by 3 or more players more or less constantly. Shaq didn't really have great numbers in college as a result but everybody knew he would be great because of his sheer size (and realitve athleticism).
Odem's numbers haven't been that great either as a result of not only the defensive attention but the wrist injury (and fitness issues). But when he gets into the L, where there is a little more space to operate, I think he'll be fearsome on both ends of the floor. He's already got a decent post up game with either hand (something Shaq didn't come into the league with). He's somewhere between Hakeem and Ewing in athleticism (closer to Hakeem) and will probably end up being as good a player as Akeem overall (he's bigger but not quite as talented).
Basically, Odem, as I see it, has a better chance of being a championship level player than Durant allowing that Durant has a miniscule chance of being transcendant which Odem doesn't.
Matt's point is actually a good one, though, if you read it a little differently.
It's not that you need a dominant big man to win a championship. A high percentage of championships are won by teams without dominant big men.
But this is partly a function of the fact that there are so few dominant big men out there. If you have a dominant big man, it will greatly increase your chances of winning a championship. A high percentage of dominant big men win championships at some point in their careers.
Here's a list of every single dominant big man that's played in the league post-Moses Malone: Olajuwon, David Robinson, Ewing, Shaq, Duncan, maybe Mourning. I'm not counting Yao because he's at the beginning of his career.
Three of the six were the key players on teams that won multiple championships. Robinson failed to win a championship as his team's main man, but that was largely because he lost to Olajuwon in the playoffs several times. So that's a pretty good ratio.
I mean Oden rather than Odem -- brain fart.
Actually, the bug in everyone's thinking here is about Michael Jordan. Jordan didn't win 6 championships-- a great team coached by a great coach running great systems on offense and defense won 6 championships.
Jordan didn't win any championships without Pippen or Jackson. And the Bulls were filled with great role-players, some of whom-- including both Ron Harper and Cartwright-- were 20 point a game scorers on other clubs before coming to the Bulls. And Dennis Rodman, who was on the last 3 teams, was an all-time great.
The Bulls also made sure to have excellent shooters to take defensive pressure off of Jordan. People like Paxson (who should have been MVP of the 1991 Finals), and Armstrong, and Kerr.
And I am sick to death of people bashing on the Bulls' centers. In fact, Cartwright, Longley, and Wennington were all fine centers-- on DEFENSE. Just because you don't score a bunch of points doesn't mean you aren't doing anything out there. Patrick Ewing's offensive production went down 30 percent every time he faced the Bulls, because of those supposedly weak centers.
You can't win a championship without a TEAM. Jordan wasn't an exception to this rule-- he was proof of it.
When I see Durant, I see Carmello Anthony in a different body type.
I take Oden.
Ape Man:
My memory of those Celts teams differs slightly from yours. I remember those side pick-rolls, and the isolation plays for Bird, but not so much the "pound it in to the low post." I do remember isolation plays for McHale, particularly when he was hot (I remember Barkley saying that McHale was the toughest person he ever had to guard -- you just had to hope he was missing). But I also remember having the feeling that they were just buying time inside in order to get Bird open on the wing.
But any way you slice it, Bird was that team. He was the top scorer, and he scored in a variety of ways. Whether he was the first option on most plays is immaterial. What's important is that he was always the default option. Olajuwon was always the default option. Duncan is always the default option. Jordan, too. If they didn't take the shot, they determined who would.
I get the feeling that Celtics fans think I'm knocking those teams because they didn't have the stereotypical dominant big men. I'm not. I'm praising them for exactly that reason. IMHO McHale was a vastly better player than, say, Ewing. Why? Because he wasn't a "dominant big man." Dominant big men demand coddling in ways that can destroy a team. They're generally slow, so the team can't really capitalize on turnovers quite as well. They clog the middle, limiting the effects of mobile slashing players. Shaq and Walton aside, they generally have trouble taking advantage of the fact that they draw double-teams, because they can't pass. Defensively, they're generally only effective against a doppleganger.
Now, in rare cases, they bring more to the table than they take away. But generally, they don't. It's far better to have a McHale on your team than Sam Bowie or Patrick Ewing.
"MBunge, I know that McHale and Parrish are/were excellent players. I'm not disputing that. But they weren't "dominant big men" in the sense that Matt intends, nor in the common usage of the term. The offense did not flow through them. Plus, to the extent that McHale was an offensive power (and he was, no question) it was because he had a sweet fall-away and excellent passing skills. He wasn't the kind of guy who fought for position in the post and then shoved the other guy out of the way.
SNIP
And although Parish was great, I'd compare him more to Cartwright. There, I said it."
Well, Cartwright at his peak may have been somewhat close to Parish...but c'mon! Kevin Duckworth at his peak was a pretty good big man, but you wouldn't use that peak to compare him to all-time greats.
And I am unaware that "dominant" has some aesthetic dimension. McHale could score 30 on any night, was a tremendous defender and a pretty good rebounder. If McHale doesn't qualify as "dominant", then how can Tim Duncan? In fact, I'd argue that McHale was so dominant that he really ushered in the thug era of basketball defense. Long before the "Jordan Rules", the Pistons had to resort to comitting a rape/homicide to stop McHale from scoring every time in the low post.
You can overrate the importance of an individual big man but outside of Jordan's Bulls, how many teams have won titles with just mediocre or substandard big men?
Mike
JP:
You're begging a question a bit I think with your definition of "dominant big man." First of all, McHale fits ANY definition of dominant big man; the guy suggesting otherwise is just out to lunch. Parish is more borderline but I would still put him on the list.
More importantly, I do think you're leaving out some dominant post players.
Karl Malone is definitely, positively, no-possible-doubt about it on the list; he never won a championship. Charles Barkley is on the list, even though he was only 6'6" - he was a post player, after all, was his team's #1 option, and shot an excellent percentage. He never won a championship.
APS
the thing is Oden is not just a big man, he is a tremendous big man.
Oden will be the first pick and there is not a person who does not know this already.
As a Florida Gator fan, I saw Oden do something no one had done in two years in college, utterly dominated the Florida front line.
Which brings me to my point - the most underrated player in this draft by far is Corey Brewer.
If I had the 3rd pick, it would be Brewer.
But I think he won't go earlier than 6th.
Brandan Wright looks like the 3, Horford, a fine player and a Gator, looks like he wil be 4th and that is way too high for a mechanical player with limited athleticism.
Noah will be, you heard it here first, a steal, at 9-11, where I expect him to drop. He play good defense, is long and can make his points without having the offense come to him.
The guy I would worry about going to high is Hibbert, he has come a long long long way, has a great work ethic but is simply not very athletic.
He looks like a backup to me.
Collin:
You're right about the Celts, of course - Bird was definitely the default option. The default option is always an outside shooter; that's how inside-out offense works. Early in the shot clock, you're looking for a high-percentage shot inside; late in the clock you settle for lower percentage shots on the outside.
It DOES in fact matter who the #1 option is, because the fact is that the team that wins the title is almost always a team whose #1 option is a post player. No one knows how to design a dominant offense that works any other way, except if one of your players is Jordan.
the thing is Oden is not just a big man, he is a tremendous big man.
Oden will be the first pick and there is not a person who does not know this already.
As a Florida Gator fan, I saw Oden do something no one had done in two years in college, utterly dominated the Florida front line.
Which brings me to my point - the most underrated player in this draft by far is Corey Brewer.
If I had the 3rd pick, it would be Brewer.
But I think he won't go earlier than 6th.
Brandan Wright looks like the 3, Horford, a fine player and a Gator, looks like he wil be 4th and that is way too high for a mechanical player with limited athleticism.
Noah will be, you heard it here first, a steal, at 9-11, where I expect him to drop. He play good defense, is long and can make his points without having the offense come to him.
The guy I would worry about going to high is Hibbert, he has come a long long long way, has a great work ethic but is simply not very athletic.
He looks like a backup to me.
Brewer looks to me like a classic third-banana. If he's the last piece you need, he's a great pick (he'd be a great fit in Utah, for example, where they lack a third banana) but most teams have more pressing needs.
APS
On McHale, offensively, he was as good a big man, this side of Kareem, on the low block as I can remember.
Defensively, he was not all that.
But he was dominant offensively.
AndI hated the celtics, so that is not easy for me to say.
Ape Man:
He loks like a third banana to you because he played for a TEAM, a team where all five starters and the 6th man were all capable of scoring big any night.
It turned into a hackneyed cliche, but Florida's goto guy was the open man.
I expected something more along the lines of him being too skinny, which might be true - he may have to beef up.
But he is a shut down defender, an underrated shooter, a clutch guy who loves to take the big shot, can get to the hole off the dribble, a good citizen, hates to lose and a team player.
If that makes him a third banana, then the NBA needs more of those. He'd help ANY team. Right away and will only get better.
Is Brandan Wright a better player? Al Horford? Not in my book.
McHale probably wasn't an all-time great on D, but to say he was "not all that" is a big stretch. He was one of the best defenders in the league during his prime.
APS
Brewer will be a great player. He'll end up being a cross between Ray Allen and Scottie Pippen. If he doesn't go in the 3rd pick somebody has made a mistake.
a few items:
1) you cannot have a discussion about "big men winning championships" without discussing bill russell, wilt chamberlain, kareem, and george mikan. here are their championship numbers from 1947 -- the first year a professional basketball champion was crowned. mikan won 5 championships in 6 years. russell won 11 in 13 years, 8 in a row at one point, and went to the finals every year in his first 10 years as a pro. wilt won two titles, and would likely have won more, but his philly teams had the dubious honor of getting to play russell's celtics every year in the eastern conference finals. and kareem won six championships, even if he was on the downside of his career in '87 and '88. add those 24 championships to hakeem's two, shaq's four, duncan's three, walton's one (w/ portland), and moses malone's one and you've got 35 titles in 59 years (59%).
2) these numbers don't even count the college titles these players won (excluding malone, of course). back in his lew alcindor days, kareem won three titles in three years. russell won two-in-a-row at USF. walton won two. shaq, hakeem, and duncan...not so much.
3) robert parish was a dominant big man. he averaged 17 pts, 10 board, 1.5 blks per game while shooting over .550 from the field from '81-91.
4) if emeka okafor can average almost 15 ppg, so will greg oden.
5) big men win championship.
Certainly opinions differ on these sorts of things.
But Brewer looks like a third banana to me because he's a slasher/cutter swingman who is not a very good outside shooter. You say he's "underrated;" maybe you're right. If so, I'm one of the people who has him underrated. To me he's a streaky shooter from the outside. That's just not acceptable in a #2 option in the NBA. It's perfectly fine for a third banana.
As for his defensive prowess, that's great and that makes him all the more valuable, but that has nothing to do with his role in the offense (which is what "third banana" refers to.)
I'm not saying he couldn't help most teams. He probably could. But the reality is players like Brewer aren't that hard to come by. 6'9" athletic swingmen who can D up and shoot a little are not that rare in the NBA.
If you're a team that lacks a viable #1 or #2 option on offense, Brewer's not going to fix that problem.
APS
"People like Paxson (who should have been MVP of the 1991 Finals)"
i am awestruck.
i remember watching jordan hit 13 shots in a row in game 2 of the '91 finals. i remember jordan going the length of the floor and hitting the title-clinching shot in game 5 of the '91 finals. i have no significant memories of john paxson's contribution in the '91 finals.
and phil jackson never won a title without having two of the top five players in the league on his team.
Apeman:
"But the reality is players like Brewer aren't that hard to come by. 6'9" athletic swingmen who can D up and shoot a little are not that rare in the NBA."
Of course the key to that statement is at what level can they D up, score, make the big play in the big moment, sacrifice for the team, etc.
Brewer, in college, was the best one of those. He is the best available of that type in the this draft.
IF you value that type of player, and I think it is crazy not to, then Brewer has to be considered for the 3 spot. I think the question is this:
The 7 footer from China, Wright, Horford, Brewer.
Who is the surest thing and who has the most upside?
To me it is Brewer on both counts.
He may be thinking of 1992. Paxson hit a lot of clutch shots in the 1992 finals against the Blazers, but "finals MVP" is still a big stretch for a guy who really wasn't a focus of any aspect of the Bulls' game plan.
In 1991 Paxson did nothing noteworthy that I can think of.
Certainly Brewer will come into the league as a third banana but his potential to become a star is as high as anyone at his position I can see in the draft, including Julian Wright.
Yeah, I think we're honestly not that far apart on Brewer. He's a sure thing as a third banana. If you're implying that he's so good on D that he maybe fits as a puzzle piece on a Pistons-type team that's trying to get it done with stifling D and rebounding, I'll take your word on that. I've never been good at predicting who's going to be a great defender in the pros.
What's not going to happen is that Brewer is not going to suddenly become a viable outside shooter in the pros. That's what's going to limit his value in a traditional offense.
APS
and one more thing:
the idea that a "dominant big man" slows down your offense is absurd. controlling the defensive boards is the key to the fast break, not having a "fast" big man.
as i'm sure we're all well aware, bill russell's celtic teams invented the fast break.
where's petey when you need him?
I smell what you're cooking, loser, but I think it should be conceded that there are some pretty damn significant differences between the post-ABA NBA and the NBA of Bill Russell.
APS
"4) if emeka okafor can average almost 15 ppg, so will greg oden."
I'd pick Oden first, but the above comment illustrates why you could make an argument for Durant.
Oden has yet to really demonstrate his greatness. He had a very good freshman season but there are many other young big men who've put up roughly similar numbers and they did not go on to be all-time greats. Oden looks like he should be better than that, but so far he really hasn't proven that he'd be that much better than an Okafor or a Mourning.
Durant, on the other hand, had a better freshman season than literally any other player in the modern era of college basketball. Maybe LeBron could've done it, but I don't think even Kobe or KG would've been as good their freshman years as Durant was.
Mike
loser:
Yes, Bill Russell was an exception to the rule. But controlling the boards is not the key --- the outlet pass is the key. That is why Russell is one of the best players evah. It didn't hurt that he was passing it to Cousey a lot of the time, either. Similarly, Walton was key to Portland's fast break...because he was such a freakin' great passer. Yao could be the same because he's an excellent passer who's been saddled for his career with a coach who wanted nothing to do with fast breaks.
But Russel and Walton are in the HOF precisely because their skills were significantly better than other dominant big man paragons. Even a slam-dunk top-notch player like Duncan clogs the lane and slows the team. Ditto post-Orlando Shaq (even though he's a damn good interior passer). Ditto Ewing. And those are the good players.
Did Kareem slow down the Showtime Lakers? If so I'd love to see the fast version.
APS
Freshman statistics
Kevin Durant - 35.9 mins, 25.8 pts, 11.1 rebs, 1.3 asts, 1.9 blks, 2.8 tos, 2 pfs
Greg Oden - 28.9 mins, 15.7 pts, 9.6 rebs, .7 asts, 3.3 blks, 2 tos, 2.7 pfs
Yeah, Oden has the broken wrist and the college game doesn't really showcase traditional big men, but Durant is clearly better right now. The only thing about Oden is he's two inches taller about about 60 pounds heavier. And yeah, I'd still take Oden.
Mike
>"Notice also that this means that 14 championships in those years went to teams without dominant big men. 6 went to Jordan, of course, but that's less than half. Isiah Thomas & Joe Dumars got 2. Bird got 3. Dennis Johnson got 1."
>>"As a Celtic fan, I've got to point out that if Kevin McHale and Robert Parish don't qualify as dominant big men, who does? "
Not only was Parrish one of the best centers in the league (at that point in his career, better than Unseld was for the Bullets championship team), Jack Sikma, the center for the Sonics was one of the best as well. He was center for DJ's championship Sonics.
I'd say you're down to just the late and early Pistons and the Jordan teams for Champions without very good centers going all the way back Rick Barry's Warriors. And before Barry's team, it's big men all the way back to George Miken. That's 10 championships in the last 50 years.
Now you might be able to say that about guards, but teams play 2 guards. Having one of the best guards in the league isn't saying much. I don't think you can say you need a great point guard, or a great back-court scorer to win championships. Odds are, you'll have one orr the other, but neither is critical.
If I won the lottery, I'd buy an island in the South Pacific, not a basketball prospect.
Y'all have weird priorities.
Durant, on the other hand, had a better freshman season than literally any other player in the modern era of college basketball.
But who was the previous owner of this distinction? Would you really want to spend the #1 pick on this guy?
"But who was the previous owner of this distinction? Would you really want to spend the #1 pick on this guy?"
Ha! That is another side to the discussion. I haven't seen anyone who doubts that Oden will be at least Alonzo Mourning-level good, while I have heard some folks worried about Durant being another Glenn "Big Dog" Robinson.
Mike
I'm not saying McHale wasn't dominant, I'm saying he wasn't a "dominant big man" because that term is typically reserved for centers, not "big men" generally. I understand that the terminology I'm using is confusing and screwed up, but I think it's really what people mean when they use those terms. That has to be the case, otherwise this debate wouldn't make any sense. We're debating the relative merits of Big Man Greg Oden vs. Non-Big Man Kevin Durant. But Durant is approximately the same height and weight as Kevin McHale (I understand that players are a little taller today than they were in the '80s, but they're not that much taller) and he averaged 11 rebounds per game at UT last season. If McHale is a "dominant big man", then Durant is too, or is at least close to it, and we're arguing about nothing.
When people say "dominant big man," they mean Shaq, not Kevin McHale, Karl Malone, or Amare Stoudemire.
"Big man" is code for "low post player." Once you understand that it makes sense. That's why Barkley (6'6") qualifies and Nowitzki (7'+) doesn't.
The reason low post players are critical to traditional offenses is because quality low post players are able to create extraordinarily high-percentage shots if they receive the ball close enough to the basket. All modern basketball offense is about progressing from trying to create a very high percentage shot early in the shot clock, to accepting lower and lower percentage shots as the shot clock winds down.
Kevin McHale shot 60% one season operating out of the low block. That's a dominant big man. Period.
APS
"The reason low post players are critical to traditional offenses is because quality low post players are able to create extraordinarily high-percentage shots if they receive the ball close enough to the basket."
An additional reason is that low post offense deforms the defense in ways that free up perimeter players.
Ginobili and Parker would both be far less effective were they not playing alongside Tim Duncan.
The nescient didn't support a Deng for Gasol trade because they didn't understand that such a swap would make Gordon and Hinrich more effective players. Gasol is not a first team all-NBA type player, but the mere presence of a competent low post player would have greatly improved the Bulls as a team.
Come on, dude. Nobody but nobody uses "dominant big man" to refer to Charles Barkley.
You don't need to explain to me what "dominant" means or what "big man" means. I'm telling you that "dominant big man" is a term of art that refers to something much more specific than someone who just happens to be both dominant and a big man. The term "hot dog" means something other than a dog that is hot, you know.
A "dominant big man" is a CENTER who plays offense in the low post AND is really tall (seven feet or at least very close to it) AND blocks shots on defense. If that isn't what it means, then why are we having this debate?
I understand what you're saying. I'm just saying you're wrong.
APS
"That's why Barkley (6'6") qualifies"
The Chuckster was famously only 6' 4 1/2" despite his listed measurement.
Petey:
"An additional reason is that low post offense deforms the defense in ways that free up perimeter players."
I agree of course, although I'd call that more of a corrolary. The reason low post offense deforms the defense is that the defense simply cannot abide the high-percentage shots a low-post player will create if he is guarded by only one defender.
APS
Petey:
Where have you been all my life? I finally gave up referring to Sir Charles as 6'4" because I got tired of being corrected by people brandishing basketball-reference.com links.
APS
The NBA height thing is a mystery I hope one day to crack. For one thing, most players are listed with heights *in shoes*, which means they're being spotted about 1.5 inches. But they're not *all* listed in shoes, and unless somebody specifically makes a claim, it's hard to tell which ones. And then they're being generous in addition to all that. I'd really like to have the opportunity to stand close to a few NBA guards (I'm just under 6'1" barefoot) and then start making photo comparisons to figure out what's what. But the shoes thing is big; very few guys in the league are actual 7 footers in their bare feet.
(The only pro athletes I've seen up close in person are Keyshawn Johnson and Warren Sapp; Johnson looked absolutely whatever he's listed at, 6'4" or 6'5", and he also absolutely looked like An Athlete. I swear Sapp was shorter than me but about twice as wide, and the idea that he is drastically faster than I am was mindblowing.)
Why isn't Amare a dominant big? This gets to what I was talking about before, but he plays the 5 and he's every bit as big as Hakeem or Bill Russel.
One additional note:
No one ever talks about this stuff, but the rule changes made by the NBA in 2001 to allow zone defense greatly increase the impact of tall post players.
If Michael Jordan were to start his career today, he'd likely be far less effective in winning titles than he was under the rules of his day.
Under current rules, you can soft double and "wall off" an elite perimeter player with the ball in ways that greatly limit him. This hurts guys like Iverson, Nash, Kobe, Nowitzski, and LeBron, and limits their ability to provide go-to offensive possessions.
Soft doubling the post is a far less effective strategy unless you're dealing with a player with limited passing and court vision skills like present day Dwight Howard.
(And yes, I understand that countervailing rules changes took place to eliminate things like hand-checking a perimeter player. But my point still stands.)
Actually, Barkley was 6'-4 3/4", to get really pedantic.
I am open to being persusaded on Amare.
"Actually, Barkley was 6'-4 3/4", to get really pedantic. I am open to being persusaded on Amare."
No need to try to persuade you. I agree with your suspicions that Amare is definitely not 6'-4 3/4".
"The NBA height thing is a mystery I hope one day to crack."
The David Blaine TV spot on Yao actually being comprised of two people is where you ought to start.
The truth is out there.
"Paxson averaged 13.4 points while shooting a sizzling .653, mostly on outside jumpers. It was Paxson who broke a 93-93 tie with 3:54 remaining in Game 5 and scored 10 points down the stretch to nail down the final victory."
http://www.nba.com/history/finals/19901991.html
What happened is that the Lakers doubled Jordan by having Johnson and Scott double-team him. This left Paxson open and he had a spectacular NBA finals, scoring many of the clutch baskets including especially in the final stretch of the final game to break the Lakers' back.
The writers, though, were so glad that Jordan finally won a championship and so unsure that he would ever win another that there was no serious thought as to whether anyone else deserved MVP.
"The writers, though, were so glad that Jordan finally won a championship and so unsure that he would ever win another that there was no serious thought as to whether anyone else deserved MVP."
How true. With Jordan suffering through a miserable Finals...
a series-high 31.2 points while shooting .558 from the field and .848 from the line. He also contributed 11.4 assists, 6.6 rebounds, 2.8 steals and 1.4 blocks
...I think we can all agree that the writers' abject sentimentality robbed Paxson of his rightful MVP trophy.
Amare can't be considered dominant until he learns to play defense. He's there offensively.
"Come on, dude. Nobody but nobody uses "dominant big man" to refer to Charles Barkley."
What? Were you not watching Phoenix in the mid-90's? That guy dominated the paint and was a load defensively -- I saw him go up and stuff an Akeem two-handed thunder dunk once.
Sigh, please refer to the first sentence of my 5:09 comment and the second paragraph of my 5:37 comment.
Ok. Question. When the Spurs won a championship with Nazr Mohammed starting at center and Tim Duncan starting at power forward, did people refrain from saying Duncan was dominant because he didn't play center? Further, I think the idea that Karl Malone wasn't a dominant big man is ludacris. As we know, he didn't play center either.
I'm not sure what playground or gym you play hoop at but dominant big man is not a term of art. It's clearly a term referring to the stud who operates in the paint, whether he's 6'4 3/4" or not. If you want to confine the discussion to 6' 11" guys who only played center go ahead but you'll actually only be talking about some dominant big men, not all.
Props though for defining your terms and sticking to it, my bad for missing it.
dilan -- thank you for correcting my hazy memory. i seem to have mixed game 6 in the '98 championship with game 5 in the '91 championship. in '91, jordan hit the game-tying shot in game 3 and then proceeded to score 6 of 12 points in the OT. in game 5, paxson scored 10 points down the stretch. of course, i think jordan assisted on all 5 shots.
i still don't see how you can make a serious argument that john paxson was the MVP.
a "dominant big man" is a big man -- center or power forward -- who dominates both offensively and defensively. he has to be able to score, rebound, and block shots. that's why neither charles barkley nor dikembe mutumbo are "dominant big men." barkley could score and rebound, but he was a (self-admittedly) atrocious defender. dikembe mutumbo couldn't score if charles barkley was defending him.
oden has the potential to be a "dominant big man" because he'll walk into the league and get 10 boards and 3 blocks a game. opposing teams will adjust their offense because of the fact of his presence. all he needs to do is develop some offense -- which is much easier for a big man to do in the pros than in college.
Well I'll get to see up close what the Blazers decide to do. From GM Pritchard's comments, I'd say he is leaning toward Oden at this point. There is a difference maker," he said. "They don't come around often."
Adding Oden to a nucleus of Roy and Aldridge will be fun to watch. Now they need a shooter. If he was a PG too, all the better.
Well I'll get to see up close what the Blazers decide to do. From GM Pritchard's comments, I'd say he is leaning toward Oden at this point. There is a difference maker," he said. "They don't come around often."
Adding Oden to a nucleus of Roy and Aldridge will be fun to watch. Now they need a shooter. If he was a PG too, all the better.
Too bad about Oden getting shipped off to Thug University. Certainly if a professional sports team deserved being dissolved for lawlessness and rampant gangsterism in the last ten years it's the Trailblazers. Truly an odious franchise. (Yes, the Bengals deserve a mention.)
Well, that's it. Paul Pierce is one of my favorite players, and he's pretty much the best thing that happened to the Celtics in 20 years, and I've been staunchly against trading him, but he has to go. Standing pat is just incomprehensible at this point; either Ainge needs to engineer a trade for at least another borderline superstar to play *with* Pierce (and I don't think that deal is out there, and if the Celtics trade for Marion I'ma kill somebody), or they have to get rid of him and overhaul completely with an eye to the future. GodDAMNit.
"From GM Pritchard's comments, I'd say he is leaning toward Oden at this point. "
Ya' think?
-----
Z-Bo just came on the market.
Mea culpa.
I'm surprised how easily San Antonio is handling Utah. I really thought they'd be more competitive.
I was just thinking about Randolph. I assume they'll trade him and keep LaMarcus Aldridge - they wouldn't keep Oden, Aldridge and Randolph, would they? Not when they need someone to play the 3. Maybe they'll trade Randolph for Richard Jefferson.
Other thing I was thinking - that division is going to be fascinating. You've got Oden, Durant & Ray Allen, Garnett, and Melo & AI. And that's not even counting the team that is currently in the Western Conference finals.
"that division is going to be fascinating."
Meh. Divisions don't matter. They don't really matter for seeding, and they don't really matter in how often you play during the season.
Divisions are a vestigial tail at this point.
-----
Phoenix got screwed out of getting a pick between 4 and 6 when Atlanta moved up...
There is a reason there are very few dominant post players in the NBA. Learning to be effective with your back to the basket is one of the most difficult skills in basketball. It is a skill that is very hard to practice on your own or playing 1 on 1. During the summer you can rarely practice your craft since even at the better runs you will not receive the ball in the right place at the right time. Individual drills are mostly tedious and revolve around footwork. Did I mention the pounding you will take on both ends of the court. On the plus side, it is acceptable if you take your time getting to the offensive end after rebounding a miss.
Actually, except in that one overtime, Jordan was MIA in the fourth quarter of most of the '91 finals.
Look, you either buy the Jordan myth or you don't. I don't. The guy was a great player who had a terrible influence on the game, by encouraging everyone who idolized him to shoot way too much.
Actually the worst Jordan myth concerns his final NBA title-- in which he made the last shot against Utah, after missing a whole bunch of shots in the 3rd and 4th quarters that helped the Bulls blow a big lead and put them in position where he could win the game on last-second heroics.
Best player in history my foot. If he hadn't had those great teams around him, he would have never won a single title.
If he hadn't had those great teams around him, he would have never won a single title.
please name all the "great" players michael jordan played with.
Comments closed June 05, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
so here's the problem: you can't know who is going to be the "best player ever," so people do default to the big man.
and so you end up with sam bowie being picked ahead of michael jordan.
me? i'd trade the pick for proven talent most of the time (although if i'm the spurs and i already have a good team that through injury-based fluke ends up with a high pick, that's a different story: then yes, i draft duncan too).
Posted by howard | May 22, 2007 11:01 AM