If Lauri is a future 5 on D, can WCJr be the 4?

[MGB8]

I do think some folks have a point when they envision Lauri as a 5 on defense as he matures. He may not be quick enough to man up the current generation of combo forward 4s, a la old man Lebron, Durant, Tobias Harris...

But he will probably get strong enough to defend against most opposing centers. Yeah, he won’t give you the rim defense you would ideally want from a 5, but the offensive versatility should make up for it.

But what does that mean for Carter Jr.? He might have the quickness to defend against those combo 4s, a la young Horford (or a bigger, stronger but just as quick Taj). If he doesn’t, are we looking at an offense/defense platoon with a hole at the 4. If he does, is the offense that you want from a 4 going to be there? Or doesn’t it matter?

[sco]

Posted below on another thread...thought it relevant here:

IMO, the C position has morphed into rim protection and rim running. The PF position has become predominantly a perimeter position, OR as the playmaker. The skillsets are very different IMO, and I think Lauri's are much better suited to PF than C. My biggest worry about him playing C (other than Lauri can't protect the rim) is that he'll bulk-up and lose the requisite speed and shooting touch to become an elite PF.

If by your comments, you don't think Lauri will be able to defend the better PF's (which IMO is possible) to a level that is acceptable, I'd rather trade him now and find a better solution. That said, many of those guys are unguardable. I also thing that Lauri, when healthy has shown me the footspeed and length to do an adequate job.

Here's my concern about Lauri. He's gonna want a MAX deal when his rookie deal is over. Either he's going to show us this year that he's an allstar caliber player (i.e. worth a MAX) or not. If not, I'd trade him. The PF position is pretty plentiful around the league.

[PaKii94]

Lauri will never be a full time C. He doesn't have the length for rim protection and we don't want him that bulked up to bang with the big boys. He is still a fundamentally sound defender. I think Lauri is a true NBA PF of the future.

[MGB8]

Posted below on another thread...thought it relevant here:

IMO, the C position has morphed into rim protection and rim running. The PF position has become predominantly a perimeter position, OR as the playmaker. The skillsets are very different IMO, and I think Lauri's are much better suited to PF than C. My biggest worry about him playing C (other than Lauri can't protect the rim) is that he'll bulk-up and lose the requisite speed and shooting touch to become an elite PF.

If by your comments, you don't think Lauri will be able to have an offensive advantage over PF's (which IMO is possible), I want to trade him ASAP before other teams come to that conclusion as well.

It isn’t about offensive advantage at the 4... he has that over most just due to his height and release. It’s about whether he has the athleticism to defend the 4 well enough. I am not sure.

If not, he still has an edge at the 5 on offense due to his athleticism compared to most (though not all) 5s, along with his range. And while he wouldn’t be an ideal rim protector on D, he could at least do his job on opposing centers. Kind of a much better version of Bargnani.

But then what does that mean for WCJr and the 4 spot, generally?

[Michael Jackson]

Now that WCJ has his mobility back yeah he can guard 4’s. Seriously though why couldn’t he guard Horford or become a horford like defender? His physical tools are good enough although not elite and he has a great head for defense. When I played regularly in rec leagues I almost always took the toughest defensive assignment, not because I was the most athletically gifted by any means. I did know how to position, stay with a man and force a player to his weaknesses though. I didn’t have to be Zion blocking shots off the court to take a guy out of the game you just have to deny them good looks. You don’t have to steal from a player but let them know you are poking the ball away if they go that way. Make them work to get the ball etc... don’t give open lanes blah blah blah. Being elite athletically like Pippen makes you crazy good but being an athlete doesn’t make you a good defender. WCJ has enough smarts and enough physical tools to be a great defender.

[Axolotl]

Markkanen is a power forward, and I don't see, well, anything really in his game that would lead me to think that he'd be a center more than situationally.

[Shill]

He doesn’t have the standing reach to be a rim protector.

I think his best bet is to be an average defender of PFs with a marked height advantage to shoot over whoever is guarding him.

[MGB8]

I just went and watched a couple of highlight videos of Lauri and he does seem quick enough at the 4, at least for now. Notably quicker than Kevin Love, quicker feet than Niko on defense, too.

May be worrying about nothing.

Watch on YouTube

[ZOMG]

I just went and watched a couple of highlight videos of Lauri and he does seem quick enough at the 4, at least for now. Notably quicker than Kevin Love, quicker feet than Niko on defense, too.

May be worrying about nothing.

Watch on YouTube

Lauri already has quite a list of NBA point guards who haven't been able to get past him out on the backcourt. That's pretty incredible, when you think about it. However, as I've said before - although Lauri has good foot speed for his size, what helps him the most in those situations is that he is truly excellent at anticipating what the ballhandler will do next. IMO it must come from his days of playing PG when he was young. He knows his enemy - he can put himself in the guard's shoes.

It's sort of tragic, then, that he has ZERO ability to anticipate when he's defending bigs in the low post. Completely helpless.

Anyway... quickness will not be a problem for Lauri when defending the new, perimeter-centric 4 position. However, his new playing weight / speed is still a mystery. I'm REALLY hoping he's dropped some pounds from last season.

[logical_art]

Posted below on another thread...thought it relevant here:

IMO, the C position has morphed into rim protection and rim running. The PF position has become predominantly a perimeter position, OR as the playmaker. The skillsets are very different IMO, and I think Lauri's are much better suited to PF than C. My biggest worry about him playing C (other than Lauri can't protect the rim) is that he'll bulk-up and lose the requisite speed and shooting touch to become an elite PF.

I don't think this point makes any sense. If so, why are top protecting running Cs like Mitchell Robinson, Gafford and Fernando available in the second round round. A decade or so ago, raw athletic rim protection guys like Tyson Chandler were drafted #2.

[Michael Jackson]

I just went and watched a couple of highlight videos of Lauri and he does seem quick enough at the 4, at least for now. Notably quicker than Kevin Love, quicker feet than Niko on defense, too.

May be worrying about nothing.

Watch on YouTube

Lauri already has quite a list of NBA point guards who haven't been able to get past him out on the backcourt. That's pretty incredible, when you think about it. However, as I've said before - although Lauri has good foot speed for his size, what helps him the most in those situations is that he is truly excellent at anticipating what the ballhandler will do next. IMO it must come from his days of playing PG when he was young. He knows his enemy - he can put himself in the guard's shoes.

It's sort of tragic, then, that he has ZERO ability to anticipate when he's defending bigs in the low post. Completely helpless.

Anyway... quickness will not be a problem for Lauri when defending the new, perimeter-centric 4 position. However, his new playing weight / speed is still a mystery. I'm REALLY hoping he's dropped some pounds from last season.

Me too. Shaq is no longer in the league players don’t need to bulk up. Offensive lineman need to bulk up. The NBA doesn’t need the extra weight. Sure you can’t push a Steven Adams out of the way but you wear him down making him follow you so you take him out of the game. As far as contact, AI never bulked up and withstood contact. It was not a good idea but his slighter frame hitting the deck likely helped him not get hurt more than 10-15 lbs of additional muscle would have.

[logical_art]

I just went and watched a couple of highlight videos of Lauri and he does seem quick enough at the 4, at least for now. Notably quicker than Kevin Love, quicker feet than Niko on defense, too.

May be worrying about nothing.

Watch on YouTube

To me it's more about offense than defense.

Lauri is a face the basket guy who relies on getting guys to play him close because his J and then beating them of the dribble. He doesn't punish smaller defenders in the post.

So he can be guarded by a smaller guy. Making centers guard him would give him more favorable offensive matchups.

[Kurt Heimlich]

That's WCJ biggest value as a pairing with lauri. Lauri is a 5 in the modern game, at least as far as matching up with the slowest footspeed, lowest perimeter threat. And WCJ has the footspeed and help defender mentality to let lauri defend that slowest guy on the court.

But labeling them as a 4 or a 5 is as pointless as most antiquated positional definitions we all grew up with. The game is offense initiator, 3 wings (or more accurately 2 wings and baseline 3 man) and a post/pick man on offense. Defense is 100% matchup based, but switchability and ability to defend the perimeter are the keys.

[logical_art]

But labeling them as a 4 or a 5 is as pointless as most antiquated positional definitions we all grew up with. The game is offense initiator, 3 wings (or more accurately 2 wings and baseline 3 man) and a post/pick man on offense. Defense is 100% matchup based, but switchability and ability to defend the perimeter are the keys.

This isn't true though. Otherwise we would see teams with two centers (NO tried with the two best in the league and failed). There is a distinction between the 4 & 5.

[Kurt Heimlich]

But labeling them as a 4 or a 5 is as pointless as most antiquated positional definitions we all grew up with. The game is offense initiator, 3 wings (or more accurately 2 wings and baseline 3 man) and a post/pick man on offense. Defense is 100% matchup based, but switchability and ability to defend the perimeter are the keys.

This isn't true though. Otherwise we would see teams with two centers (NO tried with the two best in the league and failed). There is a distinction between the 4 & 5.

It is true. The warriors death lineup being the epitome of it. Draymond was their "5" even though that definition is utterly meaningless in the classical sense.

[logical_art]

But labeling them as a 4 or a 5 is as pointless as most antiquated positional definitions we all grew up with. The game is offense initiator, 3 wings (or more accurately 2 wings and baseline 3 man) and a post/pick man on offense. Defense is 100% matchup based, but switchability and ability to defend the perimeter are the keys.

This isn't true though. Otherwise we would see teams with two centers (NO tried with the two best in the league and failed). There is a distinction between the 4 & 5.

It is true. The warriors death lineup being the epitome of it. Draymond was their "5" even though that definition is utterly meaningless in the classical sense.

That doesn't make your point that there's not a real distinction between the 4 & 5. Again, if that point was true, there would be teams playing with two centers. That very rarely happens, and failed when it was attempted with the two best 5s in the league.

[Kurt Heimlich]

This isn't true though. Otherwise we would see teams with two centers (NO tried with the two best in the league and failed). There is a distinction between the 4 & 5.

It is true. The warriors death lineup being the epitome of it. Draymond was their "5" even though that definition is utterly meaningless in the classical sense.

That doesn't make your point that there's not a real distinction between the 4 & 5. Again, if that point was true, there would be teams playing with two centers. That very rarely happens, and failed when it was attempted with the two best 5s in the league.

I'm not saying to play with 2 centers at all. That's you saying that. I'm saying WCJs defensive versatility makes up for lauri being the slowest defender of our starting 5.

I'm saying a classical 5 man in the sense of having to be the "rim protector" is an obsolete definition. Positional versatility is more than just a catch phrase.

[logical_art]

It is true. The warriors death lineup being the epitome of it. Draymond was their "5" even though that definition is utterly meaningless in the classical sense.

That doesn't make your point that there's not a real distinction between the 4 & 5. Again, if that point was true, there would be teams playing with two centers. That very rarely happens, and failed when it was attempted with the two best 5s in the league.

I'm not saying to play with 2 centers at all. That's you saying that. I'm saying WCJs defensive versatility makes up for lauri being the slowest defender of our starting 5.

I'm saying a classical 5 man in the sense of having to be the "rim protector" is an obsolete definition. Positional versatility is more than just a catch phrase.

You said this:

But labeling them as a 4 or a 5 is as pointless as most antiquated positional definitions we all grew up with. The game is offense initiator, 3 wings (or more accurately 2 wings and baseline 3 man) and a post/pick man on offense.

I'm saying there is a distinction between the two positions. The proof is that teams do not play with two centers because it doesn't work, even with the best two centers in the game. Again, that means that the distinction between 4 & 5 is real and meaningful.

[Kurt Heimlich]

That doesn't make your point that there's not a real distinction between the 4 & 5. Again, if that point was true, there would be teams playing with two centers. That very rarely happens, and failed when it was attempted with the two best 5s in the league.

I'm not saying to play with 2 centers at all. That's you saying that. I'm saying WCJs defensive versatility makes up for lauri being the slowest defender of our starting 5.

I'm saying a classical 5 man in the sense of having to be the "rim protector" is an obsolete definition. Positional versatility is more than just a catch phrase.

You said this:

But labeling them as a 4 or a 5 is as pointless as most antiquated positional definitions we all grew up with. The game is offense initiator, 3 wings (or more accurately 2 wings and baseline 3 man) and a post/pick man on offense.

I'm saying there is a distinction between the two positions. The proof is that teams do not play with two centers because it doesn't work, even with the best two centers in the game. Again, that means that the distinction between 4 & 5 is real and meaningful.

But do they play with two "4"s? Or maybe two "3s" and one "4"? You seem focused on the whole two centers thing. Like I said with the Warriors they played with zero 5's for their best lineup. There is significantly less importance on filling those antiquated roles in the game today (and thus the significantly reduced demand for traditional "5's" in the game today).

And ultimately I'm just talking specifically about Lauri and WCJ here. And thus why I said labeling one as the 4 and the other as the 5 is pretty meaningless. Which is a good thing, they both can do lots of different things which is super important.

[cjbulls]

“Per [Kevin Pelton’s] analysis of lineup data from NBA Advanced Stats, Markkanen played just 205 minutes in the middle last season, with the Bulls giving up 116.1 points per 100 possessions in that span -- a mark that would have ranked worst in the league.”