Luigi wrote:KqWIN wrote:Luigi wrote:I think the case starts with the objective measurements (which are understated for most of the weights on those bigs). Decent conversation about it really has to recognize those disparities, so I keep repeating them, because they get skirted or ignored. I really do believe that most fans are misinformed about the size of 5s and 4s around the league this year. And have a misunderstanding of Bojan's real size.
But the rest was just a quick catalogue of reasons I have heard, and suspicions I have. Are 3, 4, and 5 really strawmen? They're at least oatmen, aren't they?
Did people make those arguments? Or are is it an exaggerated version of what someone might have said or implied. The majority of the things you listed, I haven't seen anyone say that or imply them. I do see lot's of exaggerated points and there's also a lot of good reasoning that is completely left out. I guess you must have missed all the primary arguments.
If you're actually trying have a discussion and learn why people have the opinion they do, use the reasons they list. Don't make up your own reasons. I have no idea why you would list off a bunch of fake reasons as the only way you think people could come to their opinion. The actual reasons are all over this forum, not hard to find. If all you do is list fake reasons, it's hard for anyone to respond because nobody actually has that opinion or uses those things as part of their rationale.
I find this condescending. I went to a lot of trouble to add things to the thread. All you have done is criticize my post. Go ahead an make the argument stronger if you like. Address the objective disparities I have listed.
If you find it condescending address peoples arguments, and don't make up their arguments for them. I'm going to call you out for it if you keep listing off fake reasons and ignore the actual points that people bring up. It's frustrating to have a conversation with someone who does this constantly.
Nobody is arguing the objective disparities in size. (PS, this aren't even 100% objective unless you actually believe that a player's listed height and weight especially are totally accurate.) What is being argued is the extent to which the size disparity matters. If you actually paid attention to the rationale and reasons presented, you would see why some don't think size is as big of a problem as you present.
The primary argument is the style of play in the league. It doesn't involve a lot of power game especially from the four. Instead, it's a spread pick and roll league with a heavy focus on the perimeter and spacing. Teams do not pound the rock inside like they used to. It's just too easy to defend that style of basketball, especially with Gobert. We're also not much smaller than last year. Favors was used at PF minimally. Jae was the primary PF and he doesn't have a gigantic size or strength advantage over the current guys. If you think it's going to be a massive problem now, it should have already been a problem with Jae and it wasn't at all. Jae's also incredibly overrated in terms of defense, hustle, and toughness.
The nature in which basketball is played, both offensively and defensively, as well as the way it's being officiated makes it difficult to take advantage of size on offense. You keep listing the PF's, but I'm not sure it's having the effect you think it is. When I see that list, I see a bunch of non issues because those teams won't attack with their size advantage or decide to use it all.
Then you have our own internal experience with this. The Jazz have had the size advantage with two bigs for years, and we haven't seen a benefit. It's also something our coaching staff clearly does not believe in. We've tried it, and it failed. We also have evidence of Bojan in more physical matchups. LeBron is arguably the most physically imposing player of all time, and Bojan does a decent job. Bojan was also took the hardest matchup for an elite defense last season. These aren't theories on how things played out, they actually happened and they shouldn't be discounted.
None of these arguments are new. Just repeating the same stuff.