How do you build around KAT/Embiid/Porzingis type bigs?

[RCM88x]

You mean KAT? He's talking about Porzingis, who rates well by most impact metrics.

He rates alright, but I don't think you can win a title with him as your defensive anchor, hence why you need one to play in front of him at PF or behind him at C.

To me, any big man who isn't an good or very good defender might as well just be considered bad because they're never going to anchor your defense, which is the most important part of those positions in my opinion.

Obviously there are exceptions if you prove to have elite offensive impact, but outside of KAT none of them have shown that, though all are young and can still definitely improve on that end.

Even Dirk needed a DPOY caliber C playing behind him to win a title, who is probably the guy most equivalent to Porzingis and even KAT.

I think you're vastly underestimating Porzingis' defensive upside. The guy was already a net positive defender as a skinny 20-21 year twig. He's going to get stronger naturally as he fills out, and when he does he's going to be a pretty damn good defender. He doesn't have to be Gobert but he's got high upside rim protection potential.

I'm still not sure how much big men can actually improve defensively, especially after already playing two seasons. Usually for big men, the defender you get in their 2nd seasons is pretty much what you're going to get for the rest of their careers.

It's very hard to find guys who were just okay defensively for their first two years then became defensive anchors in their primes.

Even Draymond, a 2nd round pick, was already leading the league in DRPM for PFs in his second season. Gobert was 3rd among Centers in his 2nd season...

Maybe its possible, but it rarely happens, if ever.

[Dan Z]

Philly and Minnesota are both building around their bigs. This season we'll see if that's working.

The Knicks didn't have the same options as the other two teams, but they're trying. I think Hernangomez continues to improve and Frank N has potential.

[Prez]

He rates alright, but I don't think you can win a title with him as your defensive anchor, hence why you need one to play in front of him at PF or behind him at C.

To me, any big man who isn't an good or very good defender might as well just be considered bad because they're never going to anchor your defense, which is the most important part of those positions in my opinion.

Obviously there are exceptions if you prove to have elite offensive impact, but outside of KAT none of them have shown that, though all are young and can still definitely improve on that end.

Even Dirk needed a DPOY caliber C playing behind him to win a title, who is probably the guy most equivalent to Porzingis and even KAT.

I think you're vastly underestimating Porzingis' defensive upside. The guy was already a net positive defender as a skinny 20-21 year twig. He's going to get stronger naturally as he fills out, and when he does he's going to be a pretty damn good defender. He doesn't have to be Gobert but he's got high upside rim protection potential.

I'm still not sure how much big men can actually improve defensively, especially after already playing two seasons. Usually for big men, the defender you get in their 2nd seasons is pretty much what you're going to get for the rest of their careers.

It's very hard to find guys who were just okay defensively for their first two years then became defensive anchors in their primes.

Even Draymond, a 2nd round pick, was already leading the league in DRPM for PFs in his second season. Gobert was 3rd among Centers in his 2nd season...

Maybe its possible, but it rarely happens, if ever.

But the thing with Porzingis is that he just isn't fully physically developed as an NBA player yet. Again he's already a positive defender and has legit shotblocking/rim protecting instincts. All he has to do to be a major factor defensively is fill out a bit and get stronger. He has no fatal flaws as a defender but does have huge (and realistic) upside. If he was a huge negative defensively like KAT I could see your point, but he's not. The tools are there for him to blossom into a great defender, it's not like we're talking about Okafor turning into prime Dwight.

And Draymond wasn't even in the league at Porzingis' age this past year. Gobert at the same age as Porzingis actually had a lower DRPM. And in any case, you're talking literally the two best defenders in all of basketball. Not being a top 2 defender on the planet is a totally different thing from not being a title-caliber starting 5.

[Alatan]

I dont get this narrative that you need an elite defender at the C position to win a championship... Do Warriors have one? Cavs ? Was Pau Gasol an elite defensive big on the Lakers ? Maybe that was true a decade ago but in the era of 3 ponters, stretch 4s and 5s centers dont have nearly as much impact defensively. Of course it is good to have a good defender at the C position but to say you cant win a Championship without one is just silly.

[RCM88x]

I dont get this narrative that you need an elite defender at the C position to win a championship... Do Warriors have one? Cavs ? Was Pau Gasol an elite defensive big on the Lakers ? Maybe that was true a decade ago but in the era of 3 ponters, stretch 4s and 5s centers dont have nearly as much impact defensively. Of course it is good to have a good defender at the C position but to say you cant win a Championship without one is just silly.

Warriors have Draymond at PF who plays a high amount of minutes at the 5.

But pretty much the only teams in the last 30 years NBA history to lack an elite defensive player at the 4 or 5, and won the title have been the 3 Lebron teams,and the '06 Heat. Even the Lakers had the Odom and Gasol combo.

Spurs had Duncan, Celtics had KG, Pistons had Wallace, Lakers had Shaq and Horry, Bulls had Rodman and Grant, Houston had Hakeem, Pistons had Rodman and Laimbeer.

So basically unless you have a perimeter player playing at GOAT levels you're not winning a title without an elite defender at the 4 or 5.

[Dr Aki]

i bet having james harden would be the perfect compliment to a KAT/Embiid/Porz

[LakersSquad]

To me, Embiid is a different player than both Porz and KAT because hes already elite defensively, where both the other two are either bad or horrendous on that end.

An athletic, defense first PF is probably the optimal partner for both KAT and Porz, someone with a lot of length that can help cover the interior while also making up for both these guys slow feet on the PnR. Maybe a guy Draymond or AK47 would be idea.

As for Embiid, you probably want someone who's a bit more of a floor spacer and scorer at the PF position. Defense isn't as much of an issue because he already gives you that. Perhaps a Kevin Love or even Channing Frye would be a good fit.

TT is an interesting guy to bring up, but I do think he's better as an off the bench guy who doesn't have to set the tone defensively early in the game. Instead he can come in late and be more willing to switch on the perimeter and grab key rebounds in the 2nd half. He'd definitely be a good player next to all these guys, because you don't have to worry about spacing as all 3 are very good 3pt shooters. However I don't know if its the optimal fit from a play style wise.

Porzingis is bad on D? That is news to me

I don't think he's good enough defensively to be a title winning PF/C in this league. So in that sense yes.

He's certainly not on the level of a Draymond, Gobert, DAJ, AD, Millsap. Which is pretty much what you need from an interior defender to win a championship in this league.

You just mentioned a some 2nd to 4th option guys. Outside of AD None of those guys are talents you build around so I don't understand why. Krispy Pork can't get that type of defense in a role player.

[euroleague]

I dont get this narrative that you need an elite defender at the C position to win a championship... Do Warriors have one? Cavs ? Was Pau Gasol an elite defensive big on the Lakers ? Maybe that was true a decade ago but in the era of 3 ponters, stretch 4s and 5s centers dont have nearly as much impact defensively. Of course it is good to have a good defender at the C position but to say you cant win a Championship without one is just silly.

Warriors have Draymond at PF who plays a high amount of minutes at the 5.

But pretty much the only teams in the last 30 years NBA history to lack an elite defensive player at the 4 or 5, and won the title have been the 3 Lebron teams,and the '06 Heat. Even the Lakers had the Odom and Gasol combo.

Spurs had Duncan, Celtics had KG, Pistons had Wallace, Lakers had Shaq and Horry, Bulls had Rodman and Grant, Houston had Hakeem, Pistons had Rodman and Laimbeer.

So basically unless you have a perimeter player playing at GOAT levels you're not winning a title without an elite defender at the 4 or 5.

Green isn't a center though. He's a PF, and would be good with KP/Kat.

KG is also a PF. So was Tim Duncan. Rodman was definitely a PF. So was Horace Grant - luc longley played C. Kareem was old, Celtics had old Walton.

It would be more accurate to say you need an elite defensive PF, if we're only using historical trends.

[Alatan]

I dont get this narrative that you need an elite defender at the C position to win a championship... Do Warriors have one? Cavs ? Was Pau Gasol an elite defensive big on the Lakers ? Maybe that was true a decade ago but in the era of 3 ponters, stretch 4s and 5s centers dont have nearly as much impact defensively. Of course it is good to have a good defender at the C position but to say you cant win a Championship without one is just silly.

Warriors have Draymond at PF who plays a high amount of minutes at the 5.

But pretty much the only teams in the last 30 years NBA history to lack an elite defensive player at the 4 or 5, and won the title have been the 3 Lebron teams,and the '06 Heat. Even the Lakers had the Odom and Gasol combo.

Spurs had Duncan, Celtics had KG, Pistons had Wallace, Lakers had Shaq and Horry, Bulls had Rodman and Grant, Houston had Hakeem, Pistons had Rodman and Laimbeer.

So basically unless you have a perimeter player playing at GOAT levels you're not winning a title without an elite defender at the 4 or 5.

Well then we agree that you dont NEED a elite defender at the CENTER position to win a championship. Having a rim protector in one of your bigs is another discussion.

[MovieMuscle]

You don't build around bigs in the modern NBA. It's as simple as that. A Westbrook-led team, John-Wall-led team, CP3-led-team, and on and on will always do better than a Davis-led or Boogie-led or KAT-led team. It's not a coincidence.

[Side beard]

To me, Embiid is a different player than both Porz and KAT because hes already elite defensively, where both the other two are either bad or horrendous on that end.

An athletic, defense first PF is probably the optimal partner for both KAT and Porz, someone with a lot of length that can help cover the interior while also making up for both these guys slow feet on the PnR. Maybe a guy Draymond or AK47 would be idea.

As for Embiid, you probably want someone who's a bit more of a floor spacer and scorer at the PF position. Defense isn't as much of an issue because he already gives you that. Perhaps a Kevin Love or even Channing Frye would be a good fit.

TT is an interesting guy to bring up, but I do think he's better as an off the bench guy who doesn't have to set the tone defensively early in the game. Instead he can come in late and be more willing to switch on the perimeter and grab key rebounds in the 2nd half. He'd definitely be a good player next to all these guys, because you don't have to worry about spacing as all 3 are very good 3pt shooters. However I don't know if its the optimal fit from a play style wise.

Porzingis is bad on D? That is news to me

I don't think he's good enough defensively to be a title winning PF/C in this league. So in that sense yes.

He's certainly not on the level of a Draymond, Gobert, DAJ, AD, Millsap. Which is pretty much what you need from an interior defender to win a championship in this league.

Stats say otherwise.

[76ciology]

You don't build around bigs in the modern NBA. It's as simple as that. A Westbrook-led team, John-Wall-led team, CP3-led-team, and on and on will always do better than a Davis-led or Boogie-led or KAT-led team. It's not a coincidence.

Its not like building around PGs is also ideal. Its better than building around bigs but still a wing lead team is ideal

[Pachinko_]

Is there some rule that says you must put one guy on a pedestal and build around him?

[LloydFree]

People keep trying to insert Porzingis' name in conversations with Karl Towns and Embiid (or even Jokic). He isn't close to that level.

[bigpimpatl]

All those guys can create for themselves so why have a "pick and roll" point guard. Seems a waste. Surround them with a Vince Carter or Tmac kind of guy.

[The-Power]

To me, any big man who isn't an good or very good defender might as well just be considered bad because they're never going to anchor your defense, which is the most important part of those positions in my opinion.

This doesn't make any sense. Just because you believe a team needs a true defensive anchor to win a title doesn't mean everybody else can be considered bad defensively. That's an entirely different conversation to have. I mean, you can also be of the opinion that a superstar, top five wing player is necessary to win a title – but that doesn't mean everybody who isn't such a player is bad offensively or that it basically doesn't matter how good they are if they aren't top-tier offensive players.

Either way, I agree that you probably need a good defense to win a title and obviously the big men usually are the most important pieces in this regard. However, I do not believe that you necessarily need a true defensive anchor (as you appear to use it this refers to no more than three or four players any given year) to have a good defense and hence to win it all, plenty of teams have had good defenses without one truly dominant defensive player. It's tough to build a good defense around a franchise big man who is really bad defensively, sure, but Porzingis is far from that.

[RightToCensor]

Get as much talent as possible

[giordunk]

You don't build around bigs in the modern NBA. It's as simple as that. A Westbrook-led team, John-Wall-led team, CP3-led-team, and on and on will always do better than a Davis-led or Boogie-led or KAT-led team. It's not a coincidence.

I don't really believe in these broad sweeping generalizations... The 90s is widely considered a time where big men were the most dominant and 4 of top centers of all time all had their primes (Shaq had his first prime I suppose) in the 90s... and the Bulls were the best team of that era. Before the Warriors won some people may point out that other than the 2004 Pistons, there have been no NBA champions whose best player was the point guard unless you go back to the Bad Boy Pistons.

I think you can absolutely build around bigs in the modern NBA, especially the new age bigs who are meant to thrive in today's league. I think the hypothetical primes of KAT/Embiid are more well-adapted to beat the Warriors than say a prime Shaq, so the new age bigs can absolutely be built around.

[AdagioPace]

Embiid fits the profile of the "anchoring" big man. He can be a first option and also the best player on a championship team, if he can play....

I see Porzingis as a great versatile second option. I don't know if he can "lead" a team to certain heights. A wide range of skills that make him special (a unicorn) and at the same time not a particular skill that stands out . He's not a great offensive player nor a great defensive one but he can be good at both. He will not be the best offensive player if you have already a great wing and I don't know if he can anchor a defense.

KAT can easily be the first scoring option for a championship team BUT second best player next to a premiere wing player (see Butler) unless he makes the next step defensively. Until that time he's not going to make a serious impact

[AdagioPace]

You don't build around bigs in the modern NBA. It's as simple as that. A Westbrook-led team, John-Wall-led team, CP3-led-team, and on and on will always do better than a Davis-led or Boogie-led or KAT-led team. It's not a coincidence.

Its not like building around PGs is also ideal. Its better than building around bigs but still a wing lead team is ideal

"building around only ONE star player is not ideal"?

is that what you're saying?

it's not like teams with steve nash, TMAc,Iverson and even Durant (that alone hasn't won jack..) have had success even in this era
I don't think a Durant led team (and I mean really LED..like carried) would do better than a Duncan/Garnett/Shaq led team, even today

you need multiple stars to win nowadays,regardless if we're talking about big man or wing or a guard.
At the same conditions,with the same resources I'm not convinced a great perimeter player would do better than a two way big man.

HArden and Westbrook are maybe the only examples of guard-led-teams that have had good success (even with the lack of a second star) but we're far from a championship caliber team (I don't consider Warriors a team "led" by a guard. Draymond has too much influence on the defensive side and also on the offensive part)