The Rebel wrote:Name the last time any team won without at least 1 elite big, then come back and explain to me how they make no difference, and are not worth the money.
OK, fair question, let's see. Here's the champion and runner-up for a few years:
2010/2011 MavericksTyson Chandler
10.1/9.4/1.1
2010/2011 HeatJoel Anthony
4.0/7.4/2.4 (per 40 minutes)
2009/2010 LakersAndrew Bynum
15.0/8.3/1.4
2009/2010 CelticsKendrick Perkins
10.1/7.6/1.7
2008/2009 LakersAndrew Bynum
14.3/8.0/1.8
2008/2009 MagicDwight Howard
20.6/13.8/2.9
2007/2008 CelticsKendrick Perkins
6.9/6.1/1.5
2006/2007 SpursCast of characters from Tim Duncan to Melvin Ely, no regular center
2006/2007 CavsZ Ilgausksas
11.9/7.7/1.3
2005/2006 Miami HeatShaquille O'Neal
20.0/9.2/1.8
2005/2006 Dallas MavericksBoris Diaw? (Amare only played 3 games)
13.3/6.9/1.0
Looks to me like the quality of the starting centers on these winners is all over the map, from elite to mediocre and everything in between. Some very dynamic teammates though, as I mentioned in my original post.
Is it nice to have an elite center? Of course. My point is that there are so few excellent centers in the league that they can command salaries that are above their real value. Supply and demand. In a league with a salary cap, that can be problematic.
So, given the economics of the salary cap, if we choose not to over-pay for a center, my preference would be for a solid defensive presence for whom we're not paying a bundle. That's all. That's it.
And by the way, I did not say, as you claim, that elite bigs "make no difference." Ugh. Straw man arguments give me gas.
.
.