You Just Can't Build Around Centers as #1 Options Anymore

[DingleJerry]

Spoiler:

[spoiler]

Guys like Okafor or Monroe have pretty good low post skills. Cousins is as good as anyone. The problem is that the relative efficiency of low post scoring has declined precipitously, even if the absolute efficiency was held constant (which it hasn't because rules change and players being faster made it easier to defend the low post, get more turnovers out of entry passes, etc). For example, Shaq was ungodly efficient, in spide of his FT woes. But Shaq's TS% sans rookie season until his last full season in Miami was 0.584. Which would still be great but a far cry from James Harden's career .612, or the .618 of the last 2 seasons with huge volumes; or Antetokounmpo .644. Only twice Shaq was able to surpass the .600 TS% mark and by very little. And that was Shaq, arguably the most unstoppable scorer ever.

The reason there aren't any "those types of dominant low-post bigs any longer" isn't because they want to shoot 3s out of a whim; they want to shoot 3s because you can't really be dominant if you're a low post scorer. So they want to shoot 3s and for good reason. You have casualty completely inverted. The fact is that the combination of volume/efficiency of a low post big 25 years ago could be great 25 years ago but would now be mediocre even if it was the same - because rules + improvement on 3 point shooting increased the efficiency of other type of plays:

- on Shaq's rookie season, the league average eFG% was .491. This season it was .524. To put this in perspective, the Knicks eFG% this season was .490 - worst in the league this season, about averaged when Shaq was a rookie.

As for the question, absolutely. I think it's possible to build a contender around Anthony Davis (easily) or Jokic (harder). Embiid maybe, health issues aside.

Great post. I'd also add that its much more difficult now to do traditional low poast scoring due to the defensive rule changes. Before the current rules double teams basically weren't allowed until he got the ball. Now, someone can always be sagging down to help. Shaq gets the ball in the post, it's scored before help can come. Now, help can be there the whole time.

I'm not going to trash your entire point, but watch games like 1977 Lakers playoffs and tell me that teams didn't double post scorers without the ball in the past.

[/spoiler]

Maybe. I'm only speaking to the rules preceding the recent change. I don't have knowledge of the rules back then so could be the case. I'm talking that 90s era through whenever that changed happened in the 00s some time.

[eagereyez]

Perimeter players will always be better #1 options on offense over centers (unless there are more rule changes). If a team is to win with a center as a #1 option, then it has to be because the center is also adding a ton of value on defense.

Ideally, the star center is paired with a star perimeter player, and they both stretch the floor so they don't limit each other's effectiveness.

[Kabookalu]

The player I'd focus this question around is Karl Anthony Towns. By all means this guy should be a generational talent. Point blank he's one of the most gifted scoring centers I've ever seen in my life. The guy can score in the post, shoot the mid ranger, spot up, and drive it from the perimeter. (Rounding up) his TS% since his sophomore year has been north of .620 on typical first option usage. Yet he's only made the playoffs once. A guy of this caliber would be talked up as a superstar in the 2000's.

I believe centers are still viable as #1 options in this day and age, but the problem for them is the shift in defensive responsibility where they're more valuable being great defending the PNR while giving the offensive load to a wing or guard.

Towns wouldn't be a superstar in any other era. We had players like him before and none of them is top 30 player of all-times.

Eh, we're talking about the 2000's here. The later half of the decade Dwight Howard was seen as a superstar.

[Statlanta]

You can just not where there are legendary offensive hubs running GOAT offenses who are 8+ years older than them.

When Curry and Harden slow down I bet you see teams scrambling to find out how to guard KAT, Jokic, Embiid, etc.

[Neutral 123]

The way things are called in the post makes it nearly impossible for a C to be your number one guy.

At least a back to the basket C. Illegal defense change rules hurt but post guys can be contained by smaller guys because they can push back or flop.

[ThumbsUpBaby]

The player I'd focus this question around is Karl Anthony Towns. By all means this guy should be a generational talent. Point blank he's one of the most gifted scoring centers I've ever seen in my life. The guy can score in the post, shoot the mid ranger, spot up, and drive it from the perimeter. (Rounding up) his TS% since his sophomore year has been north of .620 on typical first option usage. Yet he's only made the playoffs once. A guy of this caliber would be talked up as a superstar in the 2000's.

I believe centers are still viable as #1 options in this day and age, but the problem for them is the shift in defensive responsibility where they're more valuable being great defending the PNR while giving the offensive load to a wing or guard.

Towns wouldn't be a superstar in any other era. We had players like him before and none of them is top 30 player of all-times.

Eh, we're talking about the 2000's here. The later half of the decade Dwight Howard was seen as a superstar.

D12 was a legit superstar and would've been as good in any other eras.

With that said, KAT is also a star talent and would be as good in any other eras. As a matter of fact, the 2000's needed him with the lack of depth at the Center position.

[NBAFan93]

True or False?

Evidence to consider:

- team built around Embiid choked hard last year, and looks as good or better with him out of the lineup this playoffs
- team built around Jokic on their way to getting upset by a significantly lower seed
- Vucevic getting completely nullified
- None of the elite contenders has a center as even a #3 option, let alone a #1 option


So, True or False?

lol. The sample size on some of these assumptions is laughable.

Philly has been a million times better w/ Embiid all season long - so we’re going to use them winning one game without him against a team that won 9 less games as evidence they are better without him? Meanwhile that playoff game that they lost when he played he was severely hobbled and was chucking threes? Anyone of any size can chuck threes.

And as far as Philly “choking” last season - please. They were a 3 losing to a 2 in the second round and that was essentially Embiids first full season in the league cause he had been injured for half the prior season - he was also out for weeks before that Boston series w/ the broken eye thing from the Fultz incident - Simmons also a rookie. So a team led by a 2nd and 1st year player couldn’t make it out of the second round losing to a higher seeded team? That is not a choke. Smh.

They are probably going to win their current series and then we’ll see how things go from there...but Philly is a good team and Embiid is their most impactful player by far.

And lol about Denver too. They are a young team w/o any playoff experience playing a well coached experienced team in the Spurs. They are doing well and the games are hardly blowouts. And they aren’t losing games cause of Jokic.

[70sFan]

The player I'd focus this question around is Karl Anthony Towns. By all means this guy should be a generational talent. Point blank he's one of the most gifted scoring centers I've ever seen in my life. The guy can score in the post, shoot the mid ranger, spot up, and drive it from the perimeter. (Rounding up) his TS% since his sophomore year has been north of .620 on typical first option usage. Yet he's only made the playoffs once. A guy of this caliber would be talked up as a superstar in the 2000's.

I believe centers are still viable as #1 options in this day and age, but the problem for them is the shift in defensive responsibility where they're more valuable being great defending the PNR while giving the offensive load to a wing or guard.

Towns wouldn't be a superstar in any other era. We had players like him before and none of them is top 30 player of all-times.

Eh, we're talking about the 2000's here. The later half of the decade Dwight Howard was seen as a superstar.

Dwight Howard was far bettter player than Towns, so I don't get your point...

[ocelot17]

There's plenty of all star caliber bigs in the nba, but none on of them have come close to winning a championship as the number 1 option, since Dirk won it in 2011.

Joel Embiid is the closest but he has three other all stars on his team, so it's not like he has to carry his team.

[Kabookalu]

Towns wouldn't be a superstar in any other era. We had players like him before and none of them is top 30 player of all-times.

Eh, we're talking about the 2000's here. The later half of the decade Dwight Howard was seen as a superstar.

Dwight Howard was far bettter player than Towns, so I don't get your point...

Well, I'm in the opinion that Dwight is vastly overrated. His offense is so mechanical, he's not a good passer, and he's stubborn about playing his way. The guy refused to cooperate with James Harden, who's become one of the best alley oop passers of all time. The two should have meshed seamlessly, instead Dwight preferred to get post touches. I also think his defense is overrated. Those Magic teams fit him perfectly and were ahead of their time in their defensive schemes. Back then teams still ran two big men that were still big men. Rashard Lewis gave the Magic a unique defensive outlook being a mobile PF with length. They were one of the first teams capable of switching a lot and had a lot of length. They were amazing at funneling players into Dwight. I mean I'm not saying he wasn't good, he clearly was, but his 3 DPOY's misrepresent his actual abilities.

[Black Mage]

True or False?

Evidence to consider:

- team built around Embiid choked hard last year, and looks as good or better with him out of the lineup this playoffs
- team built around Jokic on their way to getting upset by a significantly lower seed
- Vucevic getting completely nullified
- None of the elite contenders has a center as even a #3 option, let alone a #1 option


So, True or False?

You must be new to watching basketball. Because if you watched the Celtics/Sixers city or read any articles or listened to any shows you would know the issue was Ben Simmons not having a jumper. Embiid was a plus on the court, the only starter to have that. Also, the team this year is totally different from last years team.

Jokic is a weak defensive anchor and that has more of an impact than his offense. Also, the offense runs through his playmaking, if his teammates miss the shots he gives them then it isn't on him.

The Magic only made the playoffs because they are in the East. They are a very flawed team.

[Anticon]

If the standard is having to compete with Steph’s 80+ true shooting percentage, then no, you can’t do so any longer. Centers just can’t produce that type of offence.

Centers are now expected to have every guard skill except ball handling, plus all of the big skills. It’s an almost impossible skill set for a player to acquire, let alone execute.

Until the game changes (which it prob won’t absent rule changes), the better approach will be to cultivate centers that can protect and score at the rim, hit a three once in a while, and defend on the perimeter and in space reasonably well.

Then let the dominant scoring burden fall on others. Anything else is probably detrimental or unrealistic given how the game is played/called now.

[CS707]

Traditional centers are just too easily to nullify defensively to be the centerpiece of a championship team IMO.

[BNM]

Truly great centers have always been pretty rare and when the league expanded, the few we had were spread thin. Anyone who remembers when we had all of Hakeem, DRob, Shaq and Ewing probably wonders where all the great centers have gone. We also had 2nd tier guys like Daugherty and Parrish back then, but that was really the only time the NBA has seen that many dominant centers at the same time.

In the 60s, when there were only 8 or 9 teams, half the teams in the league had future Hall of Famers starting at center, but there were still really only two truly dominant centers (Wilt and Russell) and a few more that were really good, but not good enough to build a championship team around.

Jokic is only 23, but just averaged 20.1/10.8/7.3 in 31 minutes per game (23.1/12.4/8.3 per 36 minutes). To put that in perspective, in 1966-67, his first championship season, Wilt put up the following per 36 numbers: 19.1/19.1/6.2. 1967-68, his last MVP season, his per 36 minute numbers were: 18.7/18.3/6.6. There are always issues comparing players across different eras, but Jokic at 23 is already displaying similar offensive production to what Wilt did at 30/31.

The thing holding Jokic back from being an all time great is his defense. If Jokic was first team all defense type player, you could absolutely built a championship contender around him. Jokic may not be that guy, but at some point, I think we well see that type of generation defining big man. We've seen them in the past, but they were relatively few and far between, but they did win championships as the No. 1 option on their teams (Wilt, Kareem, Hakeem, Shaq).

The game has changed, so the skill sets might be different, but at some point, I believe we will again see that type of once a generation center/big man who will excel on both ends of the court and lead his team to multiple championships.

[GeorgeMarcus]

True or False?

- team built around Embiid choked hard last year, and looks as good or better with him out of the lineup this playoffs

So, True or False?

False.

The Sixers (with a healthy Embiid) are a contender and he is clearly their best and most important player.

1. 51 win team in the weaker conference, with poor playoff history, doesn't exactly scream contender imo

2. They don't seem to miss him this series when he's out, and lost the game he played the most minutes in.

“Poor playoff history”? Last year was Embiid’s first full season, our first playoff appearance of the process, and we won a series 4-1. The Boston series was disappointing but Embiid was +17 on the court. Just look at on/off or record with/without Embiid and ask yourself if he’s essential to our success. The answer is yes. He’s by far the best player on our team.

[Bum Adebayo]

You can build around any player that is an MVP caliber player, position is irrelevtant. As of now, Embiid isn't, Jokic isn't, they are all star but not top 5 players. When a Big with talent similar to Shaq or Hakeem appears, let's see if you can't build around them.

[Bornstellar]

I'd have to disagree. The problem is that there just aren't any top tier Cs in the game anymore that you can build a championship team around. Embiid is really the only one, and I would also disagree that they aren't contenders. Philly's problems have nothing to do with Embiid imo

[Sedale Threatt]

Do you really believe that teams would reduce Hakeem's defensive impact in half or is this just a exaggeration?

No exaggeration. Big men were allowed more time in the paint in the 90's. The rules enforced went both ways as opposed to now where the benefit of the doubt is given the offensive player 99% of the time. You need to take pace into account also. Teams are constructed to run and jack 3's within 5 seconds of the shot clock or get to the basket. That means even less time for defensive bigs like Hakeem to get in the paint.

That's all fine but half of the impact seems ridiculous. It's not like Hakeem was Mark Eaton, he would be ideal center to protect the paint and help on perimeter. Shooting threes are very important, but some people overstate its importance. Hakeem wouldn't become average defender just because teams play faster (which is not really true) and shoot more. He would be a lock DPOTY, I don't see anyone close to him defensively today.

Hakeem would still be incredible. Switching/hedging on pick and rolls has never been more important, and an agile, quick, instinctive center who can do that, protect the rim and also come up with steals will always be worth his weight in gold. And that's before you get into his immense offensive skills. The same for David Robinson.

[prophet_of_rage]

The question itself is obviously false...

The more appropriate question is if there’s a center In the league currently good enough to be the best player on a championship level team...

Giannis. He's basically a centre.

Sent from my SM-N950W using Tapatalk

[LKN]

No exaggeration. Big men were allowed more time in the paint in the 90's. The rules enforced went both ways as opposed to now where the benefit of the doubt is given the offensive player 99% of the time. You need to take pace into account also. Teams are constructed to run and jack 3's within 5 seconds of the shot clock or get to the basket. That means even less time for defensive bigs like Hakeem to get in the paint.

That's all fine but half of the impact seems ridiculous. It's not like Hakeem was Mark Eaton, he would be ideal center to protect the paint and help on perimeter. Shooting threes are very important, but some people overstate its importance. Hakeem wouldn't become average defender just because teams play faster (which is not really true) and shoot more. He would be a lock DPOTY, I don't see anyone close to him defensively today.

Hakeem would still be incredible. Switching/hedging on pick and rolls has never been more important, and an agile, quick, instinctive center who can do that, protect the rim and also come up with steals will always be worth his weight in gold. And that's before you get into his immense offensive skills. The same for David Robinson.

Hakeem might actually be better (defensively) now as his mobility would be ever more of an asset.