Category: Evolution of the Game


Calling Out The Sports Guy

Filed Under: '10 - '11 Season, Comparing Players / Teams, Evolution of the Game, GM Consultant, NBA by Tweener — Comments Off
03/09/2011

I meant to do this sooner, but, well I’ve been busy with, um… all that wild and crazy stuff I spend my time doing.  Like, really wild.  And really crazy.  Way too insane for me to put in writing, even while writing under a pseudonym.

The Sports Guy, whom I generally like and often agree with, posted his list of the top 50 NBA players ranked by trade value.  (In other words, not just the pure top 50 at the moment, but the top 50 when accounting for salary and age.)  I’m well aware that putting together such a list would be difficult, and I’m not going to nitpick.

There is, however, one glaring problem with the list.  Specifically, the Sports Guy ranked Tyreke Evans #39.

I couldn’t disagree more strongly.  In fact, I think Tyreke Evans might be the least valuable player in the entire league.  Literally, the least valuable.  The absolute very last guy in the league I would want on my team if I was a GM and we were drafting all of the players in the league.

To be clear, I have nothing against Evans.  I’m sure he’s a fine fellow.  I am not saying that there are not a  variety of different careers that he’d be good at — in fact I’m not commenting on his other career possibilities at all.  It just so happens, though, that he decided to pursue a career as a basketball player, and, well, I’m a basketball blogger who spends his free time commenting on basketball players.  Thus, me commenting on Tyreke’s chosen career path is entirely appropriate.

To understand my issue with Tyreke Evans, it’s important first to establish what, in my opinion, makes a basketball player valuable to a given team.  As I’ve blogged elsewhere (here and here, if you’re interested), there are generally two components of good teams:

1. They have players who perform specific basketball roles (passing, shooting, penetrating, rebounding, defending).  Usually, the teams with five guys who play the five positions as they have traditionally been played are well on their way to ensuring that they have guys performing each of the necessary roles.

2.  They have players who are in the “right spot” on the roster to win.  This means that the team’s best player is good enough to be the best player on a good team, that its second best player is suited to be the second best player on a good team, etc.  Taking, say, the guy who was the best player on a decent team, and plugging him into a roster where he’s, say, the third-best player, does not necessarily lead to success.  (See, e.g., Bosh, Christopher.)

Any team that puts Tyreke Evans on its roster is essentially saying that they think they can ignore these hoopservations.  Well, ignore my hoopservations at your own peril, NBA GM’s.  Keep ignoring me, and you might wind up like the Kings.

To elaborate a bit:  Tyreke Evans does not fit into any of the five traditional roles on a basketball team.  They call him a “point guard,” but a PG’s primary job is to get his team a good shot (whether it’s him or someone else who shoots it).  Evans jacks up a bunch of bad shots.  To be sure, Derrick Rose is not a traditional PG, either, and his shooting percentage is not particularly high, yet the Bulls are doing just fine.  That’s true, but it doesn’t validate Evans.  It merely leads to the second point…

Evans dominates the ball.  He’s not going to be the third guy on a good team — it’s just not his nature.  If he’s on your team, he’s one of the top dogs.  That’s true of Rose, too. The difference is that Rose is good enough to handle the load.  Evans just isn’t as good as Rose.  Once you step outside of the paradigm of the traditional positions, you have to be extra good to make it work.

At bottom, a team that has Evans is trapped.  It can’t add other stars, because his game just isn’t designed to complement other star players.  Yet, it won’t ever be good because, well, he’s just not good enough to be a lead player on a good team.  Thus, while he is “talented” in terms of being fast, strong, and agile, and also “skilled” in terms of being able to dribble and potentially do some other things, there is no reason to put him on your roster.  He’s kind of like Jerry Stackhouse, who scored lots of points and had lots of skills, but, when all was said and done, played in the league for 14 years and only once was an important player on a team that went deep into the playoffs (the ’05-’06 Mavs).

Is he literally the least valuable player in the league?  I dunno.  What I know is that, if I were running an NBA team, I wouldn’t want him in my starting lineup.  And when the time came to fill out my bench, I certainly wouldn’t look for a guy like him.  In any event, even if it made sense from a basketball standpoint, he’s going to command enough money that it doesn’t make sense from a financial standpoint to have him on your bench.  My advice to all of the NBA GM’s reading this (ahem) is let someone else pay him that money.

The Sports Guy should know better.

Tags: , , , ,
Comment

The ‘Melo Drama Nears Resolution

Filed Under: '10 - '11 Season, Evolution of the Game, NBA by Tweener — Comments Off
02/20/2011

I’m trying to find something coherent to read on the internet about the Carmelo Anthony situation, but I can’t.  So, I figured I’d set out to write the only coherent posting on the internet about it.

The only problem is that I have nothing coherent to say about it.  Admittedly, that’s kind of a big problem.

Oh, well.  Instead of trying to say something coherent, I’ll just add to all of the incoherent material that’s already out there.  I’ve got a bunch of thoughts about the whole thing.  If you’re interested in reading yet another incoherent posting about it, well, read on!

Thought 1:  This is all LeBron’s fault.  Seriously.  Now, superstars can’t compete for a title if they aren’t on a team with other superstars.  Yet, at the same time, they don’t want to look like jerks the way LeBron did, so they don’t want to totally crush the franchise they are leaving behind.  If someone wanted to write a manual about how superstar players are supposed to handle the situation, I have no idea what the manual would say.

Thought 2:  We can debate whether or not Carmelo deserves to be thought of as a “superstar,” but, at least in terms of evaluating whether he’s acting like a jerk, it’s a moot point, because he thinks of himself as one and the free agent market is going to treat him like one if he ever winds up as a free agent.  So he’s got to act according to the new rules of how superstars act if they want to win a championship, and that’s what he is doing — bailing on his current team for a team with at least one other star.  Without, of course, looking like he forced that to happen.

Thought 3: I keep reading that part of the trade is that the Knicks trade Anthony Randolph and wind up with a first-round pick that they then send to Denver.  (Like here, for example.)  Anthony Randolph?  For a FIRST ROUND PICK?  Seriously?  I mean, if an NBA GM was willing to accept Anthony Randolph onto his roster, and, in exchange, was willing to give up his first round pick in his 2013 FANTASY BASEBALL DRAFT, that would make sense to me.  But giving up a first round pick in the NBA draft?  The one where real-life basketball prospects are drafted?  For Anthony Randolph?  That guy is averaging 2 points and 2 rebounds per game.  What am I missing?

Thought 4:  Denver’s management did not handle this the right way.  I recognize that they’re in a difficult spot; they can’t afford to get nothing back for Carmelo, but they can’t just pull the trigger on the first offer that passes the smell test because they also have to make sure that they get the best offer they can.  I get it.

The problem is that they’ve let this get too close to the deadline, presumably because they’re holding onto the hope that he’ll re-sign there.   They should have given Carmelo an internal deadline: sign the extension by ___, or we’re pulling the offer.  Once we pull the offer, we’re going to solicit offers from other teams, make it clear that we want to make a deal soon, and move on with our lives. And if anyone in the press asks why we traded you for 60 cents on the dollar, we’re going to tell them that you let our internal deadline pass and we couldn’t afford to get nothing for you.

Thought 5:  The Knicks’ management is not handling this the right way, either.  When I say that, I’m assuming that they want him on the team, and that they recognize it’s worth paying a high price for him.  I’ve already addressed this from a basketball perspective, and I’m not re-visiting that here.  (Go here and here if you’re interested.)  I’m just saying that, assuming they want him, they ran a big risk by letting this go on so long.  Whenever I discuss this with friends, the ones who disagree with me saying that the Knicks need to trade for him tell me that he’s going to come here as a free agent.  My response is that they don’t have a GUARANTEE that he’s going to come here as a free agent, because if they did it would be tampering. So if they want to be sure that they get him, they have to trade for him.

Thought 6: I get that superstars want to win titles.  And I get that they want to team up with other star players, to maximize their chances.  But I don’t get why they’re such bad recruiters.  I mean, why couldn’t LeBron ever convince a star to sign with the Cavs?  And why couldn’t ‘Melo ever convince a star to sign with the Nuggets?  If the answer is that they don’t want to play for small-market teams like the Cavs and Nuggets, then is there any realistic chance for teams like that to get good?

Thought 7: Putting aside the fact that I like Carmelo, like the Knicks, and want him to wind up here, this whole thing is depressing from the perspective of someone who simply wants what’s good for the game.  I have to hope that, in the future, teams and their star players heading into the last year of their contracts will realize that the time to strike a deal is before that last contract year begins.  Or that the next collective bargaining agreement addresses this productively.  The league will take a hit if this keeps happening.

Thought 8:  Ahh… who am I kidding?  Nobody wants to read 8 of my rambling thoughts in one sitting.  I’m just happy you got this far.  Agree or disagree with anything I said?  If so, I hope you’ll comment!

Tags: , , , , ,
Comment

There’s Something Happening Here, What It Is Ain’t Exactly Clear

Filed Under: '10 - '11 Season, Evolution of the Game, GM Consultant, NBA by Tweener — 2 Comments
01/04/2011

I wrote in the beginning of the season that one of the main storylines to keep an eye on is the evolution of the center position. (Here, in case you missed it the first time.)

Well, we’re almost halfway through the season, and, crunching the data regarding the center position specifically, the first conclusion to draw is that, well… um… there really isn’t much to base a conclusion on. That’s because so many of the centers have been hurt for significant chunks of time. If you play center in the NBA, chances are high that you’re having trouble walking these days. Apparently, having a “C” next to your name on an NBA roster means that you’re likely to be Crippled, or even that you might be Cursed.

Check it out: Yao is out for the season, and might be done forever. Oden, too. Bynum can never seem to give the Lakers a long stretch of healthy productivity. Kaman can’t get back on the court for the Clippers. Okur has hardly been available for the Jazz. The Suns might be a playoff team if Robin Lopez could return to the form he was in for parts of last year’s playoffs. And the Bulls could potentially be lethal — if they could keep their center, Joakim Noah, healthy.

Looking at all these injuries, I postulate that human bodies approaching or exceeding 7 feet in length are just not meant to run up and down a basketball court at the speed of today’s game. Actually, strike that. I don’t “postulate” anything — I’m trying to build up my street cred, and people with street cred don’t “postulate” things. Please let me try again… Looking at all these injuries, I hoopserve that human bodies approaching or exceeding 7 feet in length are just not meant to run up and down a basketball court at the speed of today’s game.

Nice. Now I got my street cred intact.

With my street cred intact, I’m ready for a few other hoopservations about the current state of the center position:
1a. If a team has a 7 foot body it can roll out onto the court, who can both walk straight and catch a basketball, that team is in good shape. Bonus points if the guy was born in the 1970′s, and was a force 5 or more years ago. He doesn’t have to be able to move fast or jump high. So long as he’s 7 feet tall and in one piece, you can fake your way through having a real center. Just roll him out there and hope nobody notices. It’s basically like Weekend at Bernie’s, if Bernie was 7 feet tall and used to be a good basketball player. Evidence in support of my point: Big Z in Miami. Duncan in San Antonio. And, of course, Shaq.
1b. If a team has a center who can stay relatively healthy, and produces about 12 points, 9 rebounds, and 2 blocks, it has a distinct advantage over other teams. In fact, if a team has such a guy, that team is almost certainly a playoff team. Evidence in support of my point: Roy Hibbert (13.5 ppg, 8 rpg, 1.8 bpg), Andrew Bogut (13.5 ppg, 11.4 rpg, 2.8 bpg), and Emeka Okafor (10.9 ppg, 9.8 rpg, 1.8 bpg).

2. It’s possible to win the battle of the paint armed only with a capable power forward. The numbers that some power forwards are putting up are just silly. They’re like video game numbers. I’m talking about Amar’e (26.4 ppg, 9 rpg, 2.3 bpg), Blake Griffin (21.7 ppg and 12.5 rpg), and Kevin Love (20.6 ppg and 15.6 rpg).

Where does this leave us? I think it’s wrong to say that a good power forward without a capable center alongside him is good enough to win with — in fact, it’s interesting that Blake and Love, with numbers like those, aren’t leading their teams to more victories. One possible explanation is that those guys don’t block shots (not the most meaningful stat in the world, but a good indicator of defensive presence in the paint) nearly as often as real centers do.  In contrast, Amar’e is blocking more than 2 shots per game.

Looking ahead, I’m psyched to see what the Bulls do when Noah and Boozer get to play together for a while, what the Lakers do when Bynum and Gasol develop a rhythm, whether the Mavs are able to get over the hump now that they have Chandler playing next to Nowitzki, and what the Hornets are able to do with West and Okafor. (And, as I’ve stated repeatedly, what the Clippers will do once Kaman and Griffin are playing together.)

In closing, let’s revisit the discussion about the Knicks trading for Carmelo, in light of this information. If they keep Felton and Stoudemire, then, with Carmelo and any mediocre perimeter shooter (Gallinari, Chandler, Fields, and Toney Douglas all fit the bill), they would be good enough on offense to play 4-on-5. That would enable them to play Turiaf (an offensive liability who is a presence on D) at center alongside Amar’e, giving them a distinct advantage over most teams in the league.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comment

Assume Your Positions

Filed Under: '10 - '11 Season, Evolution of the Game, GM Consultant, Positions, Talking About Hoops by Tweener — 1 Comment
11/13/2010

There are a couple of developing storylines in the NBA, like the Hornets being awesome and the Heat being mediocre, that I’ll be hoopserving about over the next few weeks.  Before getting into the specifics, it’s necessary to set the table with a general discussion about the 5 positions on a basketball team.

Basketball is different from other sports, like baseball and football, where distinct positions have clearly defined roles, and correspond to specific places on the field.  In baseball, for example, the first baseman stands in a different place than the second baseman, who stands in a different place than the center fielder, etc.  In football, the offensive linemen block the opposing defenders, the wide receivers run routes to get open, and the quarterback puts his hands on the center’s gluteus muscles at the beginning of most plays.  There is some room for flexibility — think infield shifts in baseball and the Wildcat offense in football — but not much; if a WR lined up for a play with his hands on a teammate’s gluteus muscles, well… let’s just say that it would throw the other team for a loop.

Our game, basketball, is different.  On any given possession, guys are moving around, regularly occupying multiple spots on the court.  People often talk about 5 distinct positions on a basketball team, but those positions are not nearly as distinct as they are in other sports.

Partially because of this flexibility, teams started taking liberties with the positions, almost disregarding them in some instances.  Now we have “combo guards” like Tyreke Evans.  We have teams that try to play without a center.  The Raptors, for example, start a “center” who averages more 3-point-attempts than blocks per game.  (There’s probably some kind of joke to make about the fact that HIS NAME IS ANDREA, but nothing is coming to me at the moment.)  And, as I’ve already blogged, I have no idea what the difference is between a shooting guard and a small forward in today’s game.

I’m no traditionalist, but this movement away from traditional positions strikes me as a problem.  The positions exist for a reason; there are different roles on a basketball team that need to be filled.  Basketball teams need a guy to control the tempo, pressure the ball on D, and break the opponent’s D down with dribble penetration — typically, the PG.  They need a spot-up shooter, to take advantage when defenders go help out on the ball — typically, the SG.  They need a guy to create his own shots from the wing — typically, the SF.  And, they need two guys responsible for the paint; posting up on offense, rebounding and intimidating on defense — typically, the PF and C.

Theoretically, the roles are not specific to any position.  Teams can rely on a “point forward” to create shots for teammates (think Anthony Mason, when the Knicks were good in the ’90′s).  They can rely on a small forward to rebound and block shots (think Shawn Marion from his days on the Suns).  But these attempts generally fall short.  The positions are not completely interchangeable.

To be sure, it’s true that some teams have won without some of the roles being filled. Jordan’s Bulls, Shaq’s Lakers, and Kobe’s Lakers generally won without getting major minutes from an excellent, traditional point guard.  This doesn’t prove that it’s a good idea to play with glaring voids, as much as it proves that, when you have Jordan playing with Pippen, Shaq playing with Kobe, or Kobe playing with Pao, you’ve bought yourself some flexibility to depart from the typical template.

So… that’s a very long-winded way of saying that the impressive play of the Hornets, who have the game’s best true PG (CP3), a center who rebounds and blocks shots (Okafor), a low-post scorer (West), and guys who fill in around them, is not so surprising.  Nor is the disappointing play of the Heat, who have a subpar PG and no interior presence.  More on that to come.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Comment

What to Watch For

Filed Under: '10 - '11 Season, Evolution of the Game, GM Consultant, Positions by Tweener — Comments Off
11/09/2010

It’s still early in the season, and I’m not going to be ready with season predictions until I do a bit more analysis.  For those who aren’t paying attention to hoops yet, here are a few storylines to keep your eyes on, that you won’t necessarily read much about on other hoops sites — not yet, at least.

1.     Terrible teams.  Some of the teams at the bottom of the league are just awful.  The Raptors didn’t make the playoffs last year, and they lost Chris Bosh.  They will be horrible.  The Pistons are bad.  The Timberwolves might be worse.  Casual fans have no reason to turn on a game that those teams are playing in.  To put in perspective how bad they are, I’m a few sentences into a discussion of the terrible teams in the league, and I haven’t even mentioned the New Jersey Nets, who were 12-70 last year.  Simply because they have Brook Lopez, the Nets are better than a few of the other teams near the bottom of the league.  Seriously.  Brook Lopez.

With a labor negotiation looming, and a commissioner who has already mentioned the possibility of contraction, I predict that the ineptitude at the bottom of the league will get lots of attention pretty quickly.

2.     The evolution of the PG and C positions. Both of these positions are in a state of flux, basically pulled between the past and, um, an alternative model.  (Sorry, but I just can’t refer to Channing Frye playing center as “the future.”)  There are a bunch of PG’s in the league who play it the way I like to see it played: controlling tempo, creating shots for their teammates, and pressuring the ball on D.  I’m talking about, among others, Chris Paul, Steve Nash (without the “pressuring the ball on D” part), Tony Parker, Derron Williams, Rajon Rondo, and Jason Kidd.  Then there are a few young guys who shoot more than I like to see PG’s shoot, but are quite effective at it, and might just change the game in the process.  I’m talking about Tyreke Evans and Brandon Jennings.  Somewhere in the middle of the two groups are Derrick Rose and Russell Westbrook.  The way these PG battles play out will have a big impact on the future of the game.  (My money is on CP3, Rajon Rondo, and their crew.)

A similar thing is happening at C.  As I blogged last year, the guys playing center seem to be getting smaller, and generally less center-esque than they used to be.  But, a funny thing happened during the evolution of the center position into a bunch of tall guys who shoot 3’s…. Some guys started playing C the old-fashioned way, and giving their team a big boost in the process.  There are now a bunch of C’s who stand 6’10” or taller, block shots, grab rebounds, and leave the 3-point shooting to the little guys.  I’m talking about Dwight Howard, Joakim Noah, Chris Kaman, Emeka Okafor, the Lopez brothers (as touched on above, the Nets are better than 4 or 5 teams at the bottom simply because they have a real C).  And, Shaq and Tim Duncan are still roaming the paint.  If Greg Oden and Yao get healthy enough to play serious minutes, then the C position might be returned to what it used to be.

3.     The Miami Heat.  Obviously, they’re a big story for a whole bunch of reasons.  I’ll be addressing them plenty over the next few weeks, and don’t want to get too deep into them right now.  I bring them up simply to point out that, while the PG and C positions are in a state of flux, the Heat have essentially decided that the two positions hardly matter at all; they loaded up all the talent they could at SG, SF, and PF, and basically decided that they could win without a capable PG or C.  My money is against it.  (Basically, I agree with what Jason Whitlock wrote here.)

All of that, and I haven’t even mentioned Kobe and Phil going for another three-peat, the Knicks acquiring their best player since Ewing, or Blake Griffin looking like an instant star.  I LOVE THIS GAME!!

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comment

Is the Game Getting Worse?

Filed Under: '09 - '10 Season, Comparing Eras, Evolution of the Game, NBA, Talking About Hoops by Tweener — Comments Off
05/05/2010

I’ve spoken to a number of people recently who tell me that they don’t enjoy watching the NBA anymore.  One person was telling me that the game isn’t played the way the Knicks of the early 70’s played it, which is the way it is supposed to be played.  A few people were telling me that it isn’t played the way the Celtics and Lakers of the 80’s played it, a few complained that it isn’t as good as it was when Reggie, Patrick, Michael and Hakeem were battling it out in the 90’s, and a few just sounded grouchy.  The point, though, is that a number of people aren’t feelin’ it the way I’m feelin’ it.

[AUTHOR’S DISCLAIMER:  The crew of people that I interact with on a daily basis is, I know, not necessarily reflective of the overall population.  An illustration of a typical conversation for me to have with a friend is a conversation that I had yesterday.  I said something about the hoops that was played on Monday night.  My friend responded by saying that he was watching WWE wrestling (Monday Night Raw) during the game I was talking about.  This led to a back-and-forth, which culminated in him arguing that The Undertaker would make a great power forward -- kind of like The Birdman -- and me conceding that the NBA’s ratings might improve if The Undertaker signed with an NBA team.  Yup, these are my friends.  But the point remains... a bunch of people are unhappy with the NBA.]

I wasn’t around to watch the Knicks of the early 70’s, so I can’t respond directly to the assertion that they played the game better than the teams play today.  But I watched plenty of hoops starting in the mid-80’s, and I know a thing or two about the history of the game.  At least enough to address the feeling that the game is getting worse.

For starters, I agree that something has gotten lost with the addition of more teams.  ‘Twas a time when there was no such thing as a Tuesday in February when a few games were being played between two lousy teams.  Now there are so many teams that there are bound to be some games that are no fun to watch. (Even if all the other teams in the NBA got better, the Knicks would still be the Knicks, guaranteeing at least 82 meaningless, uninteresting games every year).

But there’s a reason why the league expanded; at bottom, it’s a business.  When people like what it’s producing, it’s going to produce more.  Sure, it might get to a point where it overexpands (I would argue that it passed that point 2 or 3 teams ago), but you can’t expect the league to sit still if it thinks there are markets to be tapped into profitably.

I also agree that the best teams do not seem to be as good.  I doubt we’ll ever see a team like the ’86 Celtics, with 3 Hall-of-Famers in the frontcourt, 1 in the backcourt, AND BILL WALTON ON THE BENCH, going against the Lakers, with arguably the best PG ever, the league’s all-time leading scorer, AND JAMES WORTHY FILLING THE LANE.  When you add teams, you diminish the likelihood of any team accumulating that much talent.

But let’s not look at the past with rose-colored glasses.  When those Celtics and Lakers teams were dominating the league, the teams on the bottom were terrible.  Anyone remember the Jazz before Stockton and Malone?  The Kings in the sky blue uniforms?  The Nets before they drafted Derrick Coleman?  The Rockets before Olajuwon?  You don’t?  Neither do I.  That’s my point.  And I made that point without even mentioning the pre-Ewing Knicks — the team with Pat Cummings and Rory Sparrow in the starting lineup.

I’ll give one other point to the teams of yesteryear; they typically had guys who fit into our notions of the five different positions.  Kareem was a C, Magic was a PG, Byron was a SG, Worthy and Rambis were forwards.  That’s what a basketball team was supposed to look like.  And there was a harmony to it.  Today, many teams have a few guys who are “hybrids,” which sounds good in theory, but sometimes leads to something awful-looking.  Like the Golden State Warriors.  And nobody wants that.

But, again, let’s not look at the past with rose-colored glasses.  It’s true that the Lakers and Celtics of the ’80’s, or the Knicks of the early ’70’s, started 5 guys who each played one of the “5 positions.”  But, it’s also true that they started SGs who were 6’4” or smaller.  Good luck trying to pull that off in today’s game (unless your 6’4” SG happens to be named Dwyane Wade).

There’s much more to say on this topic, but I won’t try to cover too much in one posting.  The last thing I’ll say is that anyone who is down on today’s game should watch the Suns-Spurs series.  Watch Nash, Duncan, Manu, and Grant Hill, and then talk to me about whether today’s players aren’t playing the game the right way.

Which reminds me… I have a game to go watch.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comment

Why Are Perimeter Players Getting Taller?

Filed Under: Evolution of the Game, Positions, Talking About Hoops by Tweener — Comments Off
11/13/2009

It was not very long ago that a guy could be 6’3” or 6‘4”and be a legitimate SG / SF in the NBA. (I’m still not sure what the difference is between a SG and SF – although I give props to TigerHeel for trying to explain it in a comment to my posting – but that’s besides the point here.) Joe Dumars started on a championship team. He was 6’3”. Danny Ainge did, too. He was 6’4”. Byron Scott, also. He was 6’4”. Jeff Hornacek and Sidney Moncrief were All-Stars. They were both 6’4”.

Today, the guys who excel at SG / SF are generally taller. Kobe is 6’6”. So is Vince Carter. And Andre Iguodala. And Brandon Roy. And Manu Ginobili. Joe Johnson is 6’7”. Sure, there are exceptions, like Dwyane Wade (6’4”) and Ben Gordon (6’3”). But, in general, it seems like the quality perimeter players have grown about 2 inches in the past 20 years.

I don’t understand why. One possible explanation is that the general population is getting a bit taller on average. Lemme tell ya’… that ain’t happening.

See, when I’m not hacking away at my keyboard typing crazy ramblings about basketball, I’m a lawyer. As a lawyer, I have often, over the last few years, found myself in places with lots of lawyers, like courtrooms and law school classrooms. I promise you, I never once looked around one of those rooms, and thought “Wow, everyone here is 6’2”. I bet that this group of lawyers is about 2 or 3 inches taller than a similar group of lawyers would have been 20 years ago.”

Take it from me, if you’re ever in a courtroom, you’re not going to find yourself thinking “Geez, these people are TALL!!!” Wide, maybe. Tall, not so much.

So, if the general population isn’t getting taller, then why are perimeter players?

Another possible answer is that there are simply more people than there used to be, so there is a larger pool of people to draw NBA talent from. Thus, while 6’6” people might not represent a greater percentage of the population than they used to, there are more 6’6” people around, and, therefore, more 6’6” people who can play shooting guard at an NBA level.

That kind of makes sense, but here’s the thing… the guys who play other positions in the NBA aren’t really getting taller. Consider point guards: Chris Paul is 6’0”. Steve Nash is 6’3”. Jameer Nelson – an All-Star last year – is 6’0”. Jonny Flynn, a hotshot rookie, is also 6’0”.

In fact, the centers in the league seem to be shrinking. We used to have guys like Robinson, Olajuwon, Ewing, Mourning, and Mutombo. They were all big and strong (not to mention that they were better than just about all of the centers in the league right now). Even the mediocre guys were huge. Mark Eaton was 7’4”, and 290 pounds. Look at the dude (those “wristbands” are actually washcloths taped around his wrists). There was a dude named Chocolate Thunder, who SHATTERED A BACKBOARD, and a dude name TREE Rollins. Get it? TREE Rollins. And I haven’t even mentioned Bill Laimbeer.

Now, even with all the advancements in weight training over the last 20 years, this guy is a quality center on a team that is 8-2. This guy has been a starting center on a playoff team. Here he is “protecting the paint,” and here he is trying to knock his opponents out of the way as he pursues a loose ball – just like Bill Laimbeer used to. (Remember, he’s the one in the white uniform.) David Lee, who is 6’9”, is the starting center, and best player, on, um, the Knicks.

I don’t understand. The point guards pretty much stay the same size. The centers either stay the same, or shrink. The perimeter guys, though… they grow 2 or 3 inches. Why?

Comment