Center position: '94 and '17 compared

[Winsome Gerbil]

Now I've seen everything.I understand some can take Cousins over Ewing and Admiral offensively (although I strongly disagree with that and even then defensive gap is so huge it really doesn't matter) but to call Embiid better than Ewing? WTF? Embiid played 30 games and he didn't even sniff Robinson ROOKIE year, let alone prime one.

Invoking Admiral's "rookie year" is rather unfair, as you of course must know. A 24 year old grown man several years out of a 4 years college career is not remotely the same thing as the debut of a 21 year old who came to the game late, got in 1 year of college, then missed two years with injuries.

Ditto for Ewing of course, who even after the storied college career actually struggled a bit his first couple of years and was considered disappointing (note again the prominent effect that an improved organization and coaching situation made for him).

Embiid's rookie season was utterly remarkable. For a center of that age/lack of experience maybe the most remarkable debut season we have seen. Per36 min he averaged a straight out of the box 28.7pts 11.0rebs 3.0ast 3.5blks (and a ton of TOs). With 30 games of college ball years ago as his sum total of high level competitive experience. But it was also kind of sad, because despite the obvious, and I do mean blatantly obvious HOF potential flashed, I have sincere sincere doubts he's going to have anything approaching a full career. Be another potential great great center wasted on the injury pile (not to mention lack of serious approach to his career).

You don't need to convince me about how impressive his rookie season was. I'm huge Embiid believer and fan. It's just not fair for him to compare him to prime Ewing or Robinson. Both would be MVP candidates at their best today. I hope he will become close to them in near future.

I thought the comparison was to rookie Admiral and Ewing. Prime? No, obviously in agreement. He actually produced at that sort of rate, but with none of the refinement.

[70sFan]

Invoking Admiral's "rookie year" is rather unfair, as you of course must know. A 24 year old grown man several years out of a 4 years college career is not remotely the same thing as the debut of a 21 year old who came to the game late, got in 1 year of college, then missed two years with injuries.

Ditto for Ewing of course, who even after the storied college career actually struggled a bit his first couple of years and was considered disappointing (note again the prominent effect that an improved organization and coaching situation made for him).

Embiid's rookie season was utterly remarkable. For a center of that age/lack of experience maybe the most remarkable debut season we have seen. Per36 min he averaged a straight out of the box 28.7pts 11.0rebs 3.0ast 3.5blks (and a ton of TOs). With 30 games of college ball years ago as his sum total of high level competitive experience. But it was also kind of sad, because despite the obvious, and I do mean blatantly obvious HOF potential flashed, I have sincere sincere doubts he's going to have anything approaching a full career. Be another potential great great center wasted on the injury pile (not to mention lack of serious approach to his career).

You don't need to convince me about how impressive his rookie season was. I'm huge Embiid believer and fan. It's just not fair for him to compare him to prime Ewing or Robinson. Both would be MVP candidates at their best today. I hope he will become close to them in near future.

I thought the comparison was to rookie Admiral and Ewing. Prime? No, obviously in agreement. He actually produced at that sort of rate, but with none of the refinement.

Not counting circumstances, Embiid isn't even close to rookie Robinson. I know there is a huge difference between their situations but you can't tell me the difference isn't huge.

Even Ewing is better as a rookie, mainly because of durability and efficiency on offense (much less turnover numbers).

[juice4080]

You don't need to convince me about how impressive his rookie season was. I'm huge Embiid believer and fan. It's just not fair for him to compare him to prime Ewing or Robinson. Both would be MVP candidates at their best today. I hope he will become close to them in near future.

I thought the comparison was to rookie Admiral and Ewing. Prime? No, obviously in agreement. He actually produced at that sort of rate, but with none of the refinement.

Not counting circumstances, Embiid isn't even close to rookie Robinson. I know there is a huge difference between their situations but you can't tell me the difference isn't huge.

Even Ewing is better as a rookie, mainly because of durability and efficiency on offense (much less turnover numbers).

embiid absolutely has robinson ewing potential...maybe even more but i agree that not counting circumstances both of them had better rookie seasons

[trex_8063]

I'll cut straight to the part where I think your theory falls apart.

But then look at ~#5-7 in each group (Dikembe/rookie CWebb/2nd year Alonzo vs. KAT/M.Gasol/DeAndre (or some other grouping if you prefer, but you get the idea).......that’s pretty close, and you could certainly make a case that the ‘17 group wins the comp.

So Towns (who's the 2nd best player on a 31 win team).....

THAT is a highly debatable statement (and I disagree, fwiw).

…...is better than CWebb (who averaged 18/9/4 with good defense in leading his team to 50 wins along with Sprewell),......

We don’t necessarily have to look at it as this individual comparison (because you can pick another if you’re so low on KAT, and it’s about the grouping collectively anyway). But since it’s on the table, few things I want to scrutinize in this comparison for the sake of discussion….

The 50 wins might marginally oversell how good the Warriors were in ‘94: their SRS was +1.76, with an expected W/L of 46-36. Meanwhile, the 31 wins probably marginally undersells how good the ‘17 TWolves were. They’re a -0.64 SRS (tied or better than TWO of the Eastern conference playoff teams), with an expected W/L of 38-44. Just wanted to put that out there by way of maybe closing the margin between perceived quality of teams.

And speaking for myself, I’m not terrifically impressed with KAT’s supporting cast. I like Rubio, and think he’s better than his box numbers indicate. But I’m definitely not on the Andrew Wiggins train. I realize the organization feels they need to give him so much rein to try and develop him as a player, but I’m skeptical that he’ll ever live up to his hype and status as a #1 draft pick. I mean we’re looking at a wing player who is an average FT and 3pt shooter, below average from basically any/all of the mid-range areas (<38.5% from all of them), has a 1.01 Ast:TO ratio (pretty much horrid for a wing), barely averages 4.0 rpg, and is an average [at best??] defender. Yet this is the player who’s allowed to lead the team in both mpg and tsa/game.
Honestly, I like the look of Zach Lavine’s potential better than Wiggins at this point; but he’s still developing, too, and missed 35 games besides. Beyond that, the rest of the cast is maybe average???


But getting back to the actual comparison…….I’ll note that KAT has a remarkably refined offensive game, especially for his age, and is frankly a much better offensive player than rookie Chris Webber.
By way of statistically comparing things that are [mostly] outside of the defensive side of the discussion….
‘94 Webber: 17.6 ppg @ 55.9% TS, 9.1 rpg, 3.6 apg, 2.7 topg.
‘17 Towns: 25.1 ppg @ 61.8% TS, 12.3 rpg, 2.7 apg, 2.6 topg.

That’s a pretty clear and substantial edge to KAT, and not as though it’s without indication of impact: Minnesota’s a +2.0 rORTG team (despite lackluster [imo] cast indicated above) and KAT has the highest offensive on/off on the team.

But of course this is before looking at defense. And I won’t try to defend KAT on this front: he’s bad defensively, no question. What I will suggest is two-fold:
1) That KAT is a bigger positive on offense than he is a negative on defense (I’ll note that he’s still a +2.13 RPM, despite his defensive deficits).
2) I’ll question the notion that rookie Chris Webber was “good” defensively. Reasonably nice stl/blk numbers, but I’m not going to pretend those are great indicators of overall team defense. The ‘94 Warriors were a +0.2 rDRTG, and I’d also note the two places in which a defensive big has the MOST potential to influence the team defense (DREB% and opponent eFG%) are the two WEAKEST aspects of the ‘94 Warriors’ defense.

So based on those two things, and given KAT’s clear offensive edge, I think it’s reasonable to question if rookie Webber was better than KAT overall. As further suggestive evidence of this I’ll again note rookie CWebb’s rs RAPM was +2.01…...despite playing significantly fewer minutes (32.1 vs 37.0 for KAT) and missing 6 games (so if on-court impact was roughly equal, that’s relevant given KAT was on the court nearly 700 more minutes than CWebb).

In summary: I think that one is pretty close, and one could easily be justified in giving the small edge to KAT.

Deke (who was a better defender than anyone in the league currently and averaged 12/12 on 59 TS% - has to at least be as good as Gobert or comparable),

More or less agree. I think Dikembe is the best player within either of these two groupings and is nearly on par with current Rudy Gobert (I’d give the small edge to Gobert, as I think his offensive utility has improved so much this season as to be clearly better than ‘94 Mutombo on offense, though I’d still give the marginal defensive edge to Dikembe).

and Alonzo Mourning (who averaged 22/10 on 59 TS but unlike KAT who's terrible he was a very good defender)?

Bear in mind Mourning missed 22 games that year, and that DOES count against him as far as I’m concerned (and certainly the Hornets on a better winning pace than .500 when Zo dressed). If we’re not going to acknowledge those missed games and how that hurt the Hornets, we otherwise----since KAT has been criticized for only fronting a 31-win team with [imo] a still-developing and unimpressive primary cast----must at least holistically note that Zo had a supporting cast of Hersey Hawkins, Larry Johnson (missed 31 games), Muggsy Bogues, and Dell Curry and only won 41 games (-0.23 SRS, expected W/L or 40-42) with them.
I’ll also point out that while Zo averaged 21.5 ppg @ 58.8% TS and 10.2 rpg, he also averaged 3.3 topg (highest of any in this grouping on either side) with a 0.43 Ast:TO ratio.
And one must also question if his defensive impact---in just his 2nd year---was truly anywhere near what it would be in later years. I mean, the Hornets were a +2.3 rDRTG team that year; so there’s room to question, regardless of how poor the rest of the cast was defensively (Hersey Hawkins was pretty decent, at least).

Fwiw, if we were talking about Zo healthy for 82 games, yeah, I’d probably rank that ahead of ‘17 KAT (even with question marks about actual quality of 2nd-year Zo’s D). But those 22 missed games hurt; it was basically the difference between his team winning 46-48 games and making the playoffs, and barely managing .500 and missing playoffs. For me, 82 games of KAT > 60 games of 2nd-year Zo (peak Zo is a different story, though).

Hell no. Not close. This group for 94 blows the 17 group out the water.

I disagree. I don’t necessarily disagree that the ‘94 grouping is better (it’s a valid point of debate)…..I just disagree with the margin you’re implying.

Part of maybe coming from this fixation on KAT, whom clearly you’re not that high on. You can knock him down a few pegs and replace with another center.
And what about the other two I listed?

M.Gasol---->19.5 ppg @ 55.4% TS, now with elite ability to spread the floor, 4.6 apg with 2.04 Ast:TO ratio. 6.2 rpg (but MUCH better team rebounder than this indicates), and anchoring a -1.7 rDRTG.
D.Jordan--->devastating roll man (good on the offensive glass, too) who garners 12.7 ppg @ 67.3% TS (imagine what he could do if he made his FT’s; 71.4% FG%, fwiw); plays within his game well enough that he only averages 1.4 topg (0.83 Ast:TO ratio). 13.8 rpg (though sort of opposite to M.Gasol, he’s NOT quite as good a team rebounder as his individual rebounding numbers indicate, though he’s gotten much better in the last year or two), and helping to anchor a -0.6 rDRTG (opp eFG% and DREB% are the two defensive factors they rate best in, too).

Personally, I rate M.Gasol higher than KAT (kinda put KAT there to avoid friction because I thought people were higher on him; clear misread on my part ), and think he’s better by a small [but clear] margin than rookie CWebb.
And DJ’s a very good player, too: gives you a solid (if not elite) defensive and rebounding anchor. On offense, even if he can’t pass or score in isolation, he’s such a tremendous roll-man and finisher that defenses will need to keep track of off-ball at all times.

How about ~#8-10? Looking at Vlade/injured Daugherty/Smits vs. Whiteside/Howard/Horford (or similar).......again close, with advantage arguably to '17 group.

Howard isn't even a net positive with his lack of defensive effort. He's just out there half the time.

I’m not super-impressed with Howard this year either, though I don’t know that I’d go so far as to say that. Anyway, sub him out for someone else you prefer to him at this point on the list.
If you’re focused on apparent impact only, replace him with Cody Zeller. Zeller appears to be a near-monster for on-court positive impact, despite his relatively pedestrian box-stat line. Allowing for the potential noise in single-year impact metrics, I was trying to strike a balance between all camps with my order (those that like volume, those that like efficiency and other box-based advanced metrics, those that like impact metrics).

This one is actually close until you think about it and realize Daugherty is better than Whiteside

Eh, maybe (very debatable). I mean, Whiteside’s dropping 17.0 ppg @ 57.9% TS with 14.1 rpg, and is a totally solid (arguably near-elite) defensive anchor for a -2.1 rDRTG team (they’re 4th of 30 teams in opp eFG% and their next-best FF area of defense is DREB%--->the very areas Whiteside has the most imprint on).
He’s imo the best player on this team that managed a 41-41 record (and +0.77 SRS, which is actually better than any of the 5th thru 8th seeds in the Eastern conference; expected W/L of 44-38).
That’s a pretty good player, and more than comparable to ‘94 Brad Daugherty, who was not up to his standard of prior years (in ‘94--->17.0 ppg @ 56.6% TS, 10.2 rpg, 3.0 apg, and not too good defensively). THEN we must consider he also missed a full 32 games plus the playoffs (and perhaps not in his favor that the Cavs were doing marginally better AFTER he got injured).

#11-12?: Seikaly/Robinson vs. Drummond/P.Gasol (or whatev). Now I think it’s shifted to a clear advantage to the ‘17 group. And this trend continues…..

Is this really a clear advantage though? Drummond doesn't play a lick of defense and neither does Pau plus Pau is on strict limit restrictions. This one is a slight advantage for 17.

Yeah, I certainly didn’t mean to imply it’s a BIG advantage to ‘17; but I do think it’s clear. I disagree that Drummond’s a defensive lemon, too. I wish he was a better rim-protector, among other things. But at the very least he does a hell of a job in controlling the defensive glass: Pistons are #1 in the league in DREB%, and that’s with a terrible rebounding back-court and two fairly poor rebounding starting forwards.
Offensively, he at least keeps the pressure on the offensive glass (if he could add ~30% to the FT%, he would actually be a pretty scary player).
Pau is indeed pretty poor defensively, but he’s got BY FAR the most sophisticated offensive game of this grouping. Yes, limited minutes, but consider that on a per 36 basis he’s delivering 17.5 pts (@ 57.8% TS), 11.1 reb, 3.3 ast (and only 1.8 tov). If he produced at this level for even 30-32 mpg, he’d be clearly ahead of the rest of this group (considering Robinson and Seikaly aren’t exactly “defensive anchors” either); the fact he’s played just 25.4 mpg is part of what pulls him back down to roughly this range (though again, you can put someone else there if you like: perhaps Miles Turner, Steven Adams, or Cody Zeller). I’m am also taking slight consideration of Gasol’s sub/alternate Dewayne Dedmon, who’s a solid impact player.

The “middle ground” (~#13-16 for ‘94, ~#14-18 for ‘17) is clearly in favor of ‘17 [and probably by a pretty good margin]. “The dregs” (like the bottom 6-7 for ‘94, last 7-8 for ‘17) clearly goes to ‘17 [again, by a good margin].

I realize that eras are “defined by its stars”......but man, the depth at the center position is pretty amazing at present. Consider that guys like Greg Monroe, Nene Hilario, and one of Pau Gasol/Dewayne Dedmon are coming off the bench in the league right now.

C is very talented presently, imo.

I agree the scrubs are better but if we have to get to the 17th Cs for 2017 to start winning 94 is way better.

Well I simply disagree that we have to go as far 17th before the ‘17 centers begin winning the comps; I think we begin seeing at least parity by ~6th, and that by ~12th the ‘17 centers are coming out somewhat more clearly ahead.

I also object to the term “scrubs” to collectively describe the lower ranks (especially for ‘17)…..which to some degree was the point I was making.
In ‘94, several teams (pretty much everyone after ~20th) had “scrubs” (that is: clearly below average players) STARTING at center, and sadly usually had even worse players coming off the bench at C.
In ‘17, almost no one is forced to do that; we have to get all the way to #28 before we have below league average player starting at C. Further, we have clearly ABOVE average players (Nene, Greg Monroe, P.Gasol/Dedmon, and now Mason Plumlee) coming off the bench for some teams.


Mind you, I’m not necessarily making a “‘17 > ‘94 at the center position” argument here. I’m just providing some reasonable [I think] perspective and counterpoint to the sometimes casual disregard the center position gets these days.

[E-Balla]

THAT is a highly debatable statement (and I disagree, fwiw).

Rubio opened the season injured then had a period where Thibs was holding him back. They went 11-25 in those games. Thibs finally put the ball in his hands? 20-26. He was clearly the most impactful player on the team.

We don’t necessarily have to look at it as this individual comparison (because you can pick another if you’re so low on KAT, and it’s about the grouping collectively anyway). But since it’s on the table, few things I want to scrutinize in this comparison for the sake of discussion….

The 50 wins might marginally oversell how good the Warriors were in ‘94: their SRS was +1.76, with an expected W/L of 46-36. Meanwhile, the 31 wins probably marginally undersells how good the ‘17 TWolves were. They’re a -0.64 SRS (tied or better than TWO of the Eastern conference playoff teams), with an expected W/L of 38-44. Just wanted to put that out there by way of maybe closing the margin between perceived quality of teams.

And speaking for myself, I’m not terrifically impressed with KAT’s supporting cast. I like Rubio, and think he’s better than his box numbers indicate. But I’m definitely not on the Andrew Wiggins train. I realize the organization feels they need to give him so much rein to try and develop him as a player, but I’m skeptical that he’ll ever live up to his hype and status as a #1 draft pick. I mean we’re looking at a wing player who is an average FT and 3pt shooter, below average from basically any/all of the mid-range areas (<38.5% from all of them), has a 1.01 Ast:TO ratio (pretty much horrid for a wing), barely averages 4.0 rpg, and is an average [at best??] defender. Yet this is the player who’s allowed to lead the team in both mpg and tsa/game.
Honestly, I like the look of Zach Lavine’s potential better than Wiggins at this point; but he’s still developing, too, and missed 35 games besides. Beyond that, the rest of the cast is maybe average???

His support isn't good but neither is the team. I don't really disagree with anything you said here but they shouldn't be the 3rd worst defense in the worst defensive year in league history.

But getting back to the actual comparison…….I’ll note that KAT has a remarkably refined offensive game, especially for his age, and is frankly a much better offensive player than rookie Chris Webber.
By way of statistically comparing things that are [mostly] outside of the defensive side of the discussion….
‘94 Webber: 17.6 ppg @ 55.9% TS, 9.1 rpg, 3.6 apg, 2.7 topg.
‘17 Towns: 25.1 ppg @ 61.8% TS, 12.3 rpg, 2.7 apg, 2.6 topg.

That’s a pretty clear and substantial edge to KAT, and not as though it’s without indication of impact: Minnesota’s a +2.0 rORTG team (despite lackluster [imo] cast indicated above) and KAT has the highest offensive on/off on the team.

Don't disagree here at all. KAT is a monster offensively and this year showed the ability to score without being fed the basket.

But of course this is before looking at defense. And I won’t try to defend KAT on this front: he’s bad defensively, no question. What I will suggest is two-fold:
1) That KAT is a bigger positive on offense than he is a negative on defense (I’ll note that he’s still a +2.13 RPM, despite his defensive deficits).
2) I’ll question the notion that rookie Chris Webber was “good” defensively. Reasonably nice stl/blk numbers, but I’m not going to pretend those are great indicators of overall team defense. The ‘94 Warriors were a +0.2 rDRTG, and I’d also note the two places in which a defensive big has the MOST potential to influence the team defense (DREB% and opponent eFG%) are the two WEAKEST aspects of the ‘94 Warriors’ defense.

But C Webb forced a lot of turnovers himself and they were actually average in eFG% against. Bad rebounder but I don't think there's any argument Webber wasn't a positive player on both sides of the ball. I'm not saying he was great but he was good.

So based on those two things, and given KAT’s clear offensive edge, I think it’s reasonable to question if rookie Webber was better than KAT overall. As further suggestive evidence of this I’ll again note rookie CWebb’s rs RAPM was +2.01…...despite playing significantly fewer minutes (32.1 vs 37.0 for KAT) and missing 6 games (so if on-court impact was roughly equal, that’s relevant given KAT was on the court nearly 700 more minutes than CWebb).

In summary: I think that one is pretty close, and one could easily be justified in giving the small edge to KAT.

KAT is a horrible defender though and a +2 RAPM is really good (and well above KAT's rookie season and I personally think KAT wouldn't rank much higher this year if we had it). And I thought this thread was a talent thing not an added value thing so minutes don't matter compared to roles here imo. I mean Manu Ginobili didn't play as much as (for example) Beal this year but he's still a better player.

Also I used Webber for the comparison because he's the worst of those 3. Zo would possibly be the best C in the league and Deke would probably be right under Cousins imo.

Bear in mind Mourning missed 22 games that year, and that DOES count against him as far as I’m concerned (and certainly the Hornets on a better winning pace than .500 when Zo dressed). If we’re not going to acknowledge those missed games and how that hurt the Hornets, we otherwise----since KAT has been criticized for only fronting a 31-win team with [imo] a still-developing and unimpressive primary cast----must at least holistically note that Zo had a supporting cast of Hersey Hawkins, Larry Johnson (missed 31 games), Muggsy Bogues, and Dell Curry and only won 41 games (-0.23 SRS, expected W/L or 40-42) with them.
I’ll also point out that while Zo averaged 21.5 ppg @ 58.8% TS and 10.2 rpg, he also averaged 3.3 topg (highest of any in this grouping on either side) with a 0.43 Ast:TO ratio.
And one must also question if his defensive impact---in just his 2nd year---was truly anywhere near what it would be in later years. I mean, the Hornets were a +2.3 rDRTG team that year; so there’s room to question, regardless of how poor the rest of the cast was defensively (Hersey Hawkins was pretty decent, at least).

Fwiw, if we were talking about Zo healthy for 82 games, yeah, I’d probably rank that ahead of ‘17 KAT (even with question marks about actual quality of 2nd-year Zo’s D). But those 22 missed games hurt; it was basically the difference between his team winning 46-48 games and making the playoffs, and barely managing .500 and missing playoffs. For me, 82 games of KAT > 60 games of 2nd-year Zo (peak Zo is a different story, though).

Again I'm just going off talent not exactly what happened that season and by pure talent Zo is better than KAT. I think he's the best of the group. I mean yeah his team was talented and only won 41 games but they had tons of injuries. They went 35-25 when Zo played, 31-19 when both Zo and LJ played, and won 50 games the next season showing that wasn't a small sample size fluke. And So went straight from the Hornets and leading meh defenses to leading great ones in Miami with a good defensive supporting cast and coach. That said KAT did probably have a better season (or its at least close) but Zo was way better as a player which in a comparison like this is what really matters. If Zo had consistent injury problems I'd be different.

I disagree. I don’t necessarily disagree that the ‘94 grouping is better (it’s a valid point of debate)…..I just disagree with the margin you’re implying.

Part of maybe coming from this fixation on KAT, whom clearly you’re not that high on. You can knock him down a few pegs and replace with another center.
And what about the other two I listed?

M.Gasol---->19.5 ppg @ 55.4% TS, now with elite ability to spread the floor, 4.6 apg with 2.04 Ast:TO ratio. 6.2 rpg (but MUCH better team rebounder than this indicates), and anchoring a -1.7 rDRTG.
D.Jordan--->devastating roll man (good on the offensive glass, too) who garners 12.7 ppg @ 67.3% TS (imagine what he could do if he made his FT’s; 71.4% FG%, fwiw); plays within his game well enough that he only averages 1.4 topg (0.83 Ast:TO ratio). 13.8 rpg (though sort of opposite to M.Gasol, he’s NOT quite as good a team rebounder as his individual rebounding numbers indicate, though he’s gotten much better in the last year or two), and helping to anchor a -0.6 rDRTG (opp eFG% and DREB% are the two defensive factors they rate best in, too).

Personally, I rate M.Gasol higher than KAT (kinda put KAT there to avoid friction because I thought people were higher on him; clear misread on my part ), and think he’s better by a small [but clear] margin than rookie CWebb.
And DJ’s a very good player, too: gives you a solid (if not elite) defensive and rebounding anchor. On offense, even if he can’t pass or score in isolation, he’s such a tremendous roll-man and finisher that defenses will need to keep track of off-ball at all times.

Totally agree with what you said about Marc (I think Marc is the 3rd or 4th best C in the league) but I'd still put Zo (healthy) over him and possibly Deke. He's definitely better than rookie C Webb though. DJ is underrated imo but he's still not close. No matter how you shake it I just think Zo and Deke are good enough to be 2 of the top 3 Cs in the league right now so I rate them well over that group. I think the difference is you're accounting for missed games.

I’m not super-impressed with Howard this year either, though I don’t know that I’d go so far as to say that. Anyway, sub him out for someone else you prefer to him at this point on the list.
If you’re focused on apparent impact only, replace him with Cody Zeller. Zeller appears to be a near-monster for on-court positive impact, despite his relatively pedestrian box-stat line. Allowing for the potential noise in single-year impact metrics, I was trying to strike a balance between all camps with my order (those that like volume, those that like efficiency and other box-based advanced metrics, those that like impact metrics).

I love me some Cody Zeller but I don't think he only played 27 mpg because they use him sparingly I think he only plays that much because there's a ton of situations where he can't be on the floor effectively. Offensively he's a pure C but defensively he's as PF as it gets. Leads to tons of issues when they need rim protection and have to play both him and Hibbert.

Ehh, maybe (very debatable). I mean, Whiteside’s dropping 17.0 ppg @ 57.9% TS with 14.1 rpg, and is a totally solid (arguably near-elite) defensive anchor for a -2.1 rDRTG team (they’re 4th of 30 teams in opp eFG% and their next-best FF area of defense is DREB%--->the very areas Whiteside has the most imprint on).
He’s imo the best player on this team that managed a 41-41 record (and +0.77 SRS, which is actually better than any of the 5th thru 8th seeds in the Eastern conference; expected W/L of 44-38).
That’s a pretty good player, and more than comparable to ‘94 Brad Daugherty, who was not up to his standard of prior years (in ‘94--->17.0 ppg @ 56.6% TS, 10.2 rpg, 3.0 apg, and not too good defensively). THEN we must consider he also missed a full 32 games plus the playoffs (and perhaps not in his favor that the Cavs were doing marginally better AFTER he got injured).

Their turnaround didn't really include better play by Whiteside though. When they started winning it was because almost everyone else started playing better. That said he was definitely better defensively than he was the 2 seasons prior and I didn't realize that was the year Daugherty had that back injury that ended his career so you're right and Whiteside is probably better in terms of actual play (I'd still argue healthy Brad was better).

Yeah, I certainly didn’t mean to imply it’s a BIG advantage to ‘17; but I do think it’s clear. I disagree that Drummond’s a defensive lemon, too. I wish he was a better rim-protector, among other things. But at the very least he does a hell of a job in controlling the defensive glass: Pistons are #1 in the league in DREB%, and that’s with a terrible rebounding back-court and two fairly poor rebounding starting forwards.
Offensively, he at least keeps the pressure on the offensive glass (if he could add ~30% to the FT%, he would actually be a pretty scary player).
Pau is indeed pretty poor defensively, but he’s got BY FAR the most sophisticated offensive game of this grouping. Yes, limited minutes, but consider that on a per 36 basis he’s delivering 17.5 pts (@ 57.8% TS), 11.1 reb, 3.3 ast (and only 1.8 tov). If he produced at this level for even 30-32 mpg, he’d be clearly ahead of the rest of this group (considering Robinson and Seikaly aren’t exactly “defensive anchors” either); the fact he’s played just 25.4 mpg is part of what pulls him back down to roughly this range (though again, you can put someone else there if you like: perhaps Miles Turner, Steven Adams, or Cody Zeller). I’m am also taking slight consideration of Gasol’s sub/alternate Dewayne Dedmon, who’s a solid impact player.

Pau belongs there but the minute restriction is a big thing IMO because I don't think he can play those extra minutes at his age. And I gotta completely disagree with Drummond. Go ask some Pistons fans how they feel about I'm I think you'll be surprised.

Well I simply disagree that we have to go as far 17th before the ‘17 centers begin winning the comps; I think we begin seeing at least parity by ~6th, and that by ~12th the ‘17 centers are coming out somewhat more clearly ahead.

I also object to the term “scrubs” to collectively describe the lower ranks (especially for ‘17)…..which to some degree was the point I was making.
In ‘94, several teams (pretty much everyone after ~20th) had “scrubs” (that is: clearly below average players) STARTING at center, and sadly usually had even worse players coming off the bench at C.
In ‘17, almost no one is forced to do that; we have to get all the way to #28 before we have below league average player starting at C. Further, we have clearly ABOVE average players (Nene, Greg Monroe, P.Gasol/Dedmon, and now Mason Plumlee) coming off the bench for some teams.


Mind you, I’m not necessarily making a “‘17 > ‘94 at the center position” argument here. I’m just providing some reasonable [I think] perspective and counterpoint to the sometimes casual disregard the center position gets these days.

I think the C position is great now definitely and if the thread was just saying Cs now are good I'd be gung ho about it but the comparison to 94 muddied up the real topic and discussion. I definitely get the intention now though and I agree. In a few years when these guys learn to play defense hopefully it'll be even better.

[FuShengTHEGreat]

1992-96 is the GOAT era for C play in NBA history.

In 94.....that (and the following 1995) marked the only years in NBA history where the top 3 leading regular season scorers were Centers. I don't think that'll ever happen again.

And Dikembe in the 1994 playoffs did something no other C in NBA history except Bill Russell managed to do.....leading a team to a playoff series victory based on defensive dominance first and foremost.

[cpower]

This also has a lot to do with the style of the game we are playing right now. Back in the days centers were supposed to be DO-IT-ALL type of scorers/rebounder/defender, and in today's game a lot of scoring load has been shifted to guards for much efficient offense. Unless you are Shaq, centers are better off scoring on lobs/put backs and keep all the energy on defense.

I also think teams that use big man as primary scorers will not beat the teams that uses perimeter players as alpha in this era. AD will probably work with another dominant perimeter player but Cousins/KAT will likely not work.

[Dudeinthepaint1]

I'd say every position is deeper today than years ago. There were guys playing in the 80's & 90's that probably would make a roster today. The overall talent of players has improved. I say that as a diehard old school fan.

With centers it's tricky because their style of play has changed. Not many set up down on the block possession after possession. Their range has expanded & they shoot more jumpers. There's plenty of talented big men but they don't play like centers used to. I mean Shaq strictly dominated by staying in the paint. Don't see that much now. Just a different game.