Tag Archives: Landry Fields

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.

2 Comments:

Leave a Comment:

Add The ‘Melo Fellow

During the few minutes per day that I’m in my car, I turn on local sports radio. Recently, there has been lots of discussion over whether the Knicks should trade for Carmelo Anthony.

I’m sorry, but I don’t even see how this is a close call. As I’ve already said, I’m a big Syracuse fan (here, if you’re interested), and I acknowledge that there’s a chance I’m seeing Carmelo through Orange-colored glasses. But I don’t think so.

To me, this is quite simple: if the Knicks are serious about becoming a contender, they should absolutely trade for him. Give up anyone on the roster not named Amar’e or Raymond. Give up Wilson. Give up Landry. Give up Wilson and Landry. And Danilo, if Denver wants him, too. Give up draft picks. And cash. Hell, throw in the scoreboard above the court or the banners hanging in the rafters if that’s what Denver wants.

I mean no disrespect to Wilson, Landry, or Danilo. Each of those guys could be a “piece” on a championship team.

The thing is, though, that, to build a champion, you have to start at the top of the roster and work down. The main question is whether your top three guys are good enough to be the top three guys on a championship team. If they are, it’s time to surround them with complimentary players. If they aren’t, it’s time to come up with a plan for improving your top three.

Right now, the Knicks’ top three is Amar’e, Felton, and… um… I don’t know. They have a bunch of other good players, but, put any of those those with Amar’e and Felton, compare them to other teams’ “top threes,” and you’ll see that the Knicks come up short. For starters, they aren’t better than:
(1) Rondo, Pierce, KG (or Allen),
(2) Kobe, Gasol, Odom (or Bynum),
(3) Manu, Tony, and Tim,
(4) Wade, James, and Bosh,
(5) Johnson, Horford, and Smith,
(6) Rose, Noah, and Boozer,
(7) Paul, West, and Okafor,
(8) Dirk, Kidd, and Butler, or
(9) Westbrook, Durant, and whoever-the-third-best-guy-on-the-Thunder-is.

So, no championship, no matter how good the complimentary players are. Bring in Carmelo, though, and the whole picture changes.

I recognize that there are arguments as to why the Knicks shouldn’t trade for Carmelo, but none of them withstands scrutiny (a lawyer term, sorry). To address two of the main ones quickly:

Carmelo’s Not a Winner. I’m sorry, but this is absurd. The Nuggets were 17-65 the year before they drafted him, and they’ve been in the playoffs every year since. Sounds like a winner to me. And, he carried Syracuse to a national championship in college. I know lots of people overlook accomplishments in college when talking about how good a particular player is, but it makes no sense to do that. When you say that someone “isn’t a winner,” you’re saying that they don’t have what it takes to step up in moments of adversity towards the end of a game. The fact that the person carried a team to an NCAA championship should dispel that.

Essentially, the people who are against trading for Carmelo because he’s “not a winner” are saying that the only stars whom the Knicks should trade for are the ones on the Lakers, Spurs, and Celtics, and Dwyane Wade. No other star in the league has been a major contributor to a championship team, so none “is a winner.”

That’s crazy talk.

Carmelo Will Disrupt Team Chemistry. I know it’s en vogue to talk about “chemistry” and sound knowledgeable, but, in my opinion, the abstract notion of “team chemistry” that people talk about — as if it comes from a magical formula that can’t be tinkered with once it’s perfected — is vastly overrated. In basketball, “team chemistry” is largely determined by what the guys do on the court. If their skills compliment each other (one guy handles the ball and creates shots for others, one is deadly when left open, one slashes to the rim, and at least one operates mostly down low), then the team almost always has “chemistry.” If their skills don’t compliment each other, you might have a “team with chemistry,” but you almost certainly won’t have “a team with a championship.”

To be sure, in some instances, egos can ruin chemistry even when basketball skills compliment each other. The clearest recent example was the T’Wolves teams with a young Marbury, young Garnett, and Wally World. From a pure basketball perspective, their skills were perfectly complimentary, and it looked like Minnesota could build a real competitor around them. But Marbury and KG couldn’t coexist, and the team fell apart (dragging Wally’s career down with it).

Regarding the Knicks, Amar’e and Raymond are just fine together, and there’s no reason to think that Carmelo would disrupt anything. So, yes, the Knicks would be breaking up a team that seems to be fitting together well, but I say go for it. The ceiling for this team as currently constructed is getting out of the first round of the playoffs. If they’re serious about contending, they should bring in the ‘Melo Fellow.

Thoughts, Knicks fans? I hope you’ll share ’em.

1 Comment:

Leave a Comment: