RealGM

Since 1999, each NBA title with the exception of one has been won by teams led by or at least featuringy Hall of Fame-level C/PFs - Shaq/KG/Duncan. Whereas those 3 may well not be the best players to play their positions, the last superstar perimeter players to win titles are Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, and Isaiah Thomas - the former three each arguably the greatest player of all time, and the latter having a great deal of overall talent around him and just happening to play against a still untested Bulls team. Let's not forget the Bird and Magic had hall of fame Cs/PFs as well.

To me, there is a clear imbalance between perimeter play and post play. To win an NBA championship, it seems like one NEEDS a hall-of-fame caliber big-man, or an undisputed top 10 player of all time.

So I have three questions.

1: What can general managers do to work around this, whether in terms of finding elite big man talent or building their teams to compensake for the lack thereof?
2: What about the NBA produces this apparent imbalance?
3: If the NBA adoped college/international rules, would this imbalance be rectified?
4: What factors would one use to scout potential elite post players? From what I know of it, it seems to be a crapshoot; a player has to have both "measureables" and "intangibles", otherwise they turn into Kwame Browns.

If there is any problem with my questions or the way I worded them, let me know.

While I agree with your theory interms of the importance of PF/C's, Duncan (Parker/Ginobli) Shaq (Kobe) and KG (Pierce) had great perimeter players to do alot of the scoring that won the title.

While a great big man is a huge advantage in getting to the finals, close playoff games are almost always decided by perimeter players. So I guess there is some balance on a game by game basis, even though the big men are better players than the perimeter guys on their teams that were so vital.

My question is why is it always perimeter guys that do the late game scoring?

Remember that Parker and Ginoboli weren't there for the first title, and Parker wasn't a star in 03 IIRC.

I'll agree with that in general though.

However, it seems pretty clear that you can win with superstar post player + solid perimeter player (see 1999 Spurs, though they may be an outlier like 04 Pistons), whereas superstar perimeter player + solid post player needs the perimeter player to be near Jordan-level.

It starts with having a SuperDuperStar, if he happens to play in the post that's even better.

It's all about the ability to dominate the paint. It is easier to do it with a dominating big man, but with the handchecking rule and taking away illegal defense perimeter players have taken a much more active role. If you look at the finals the past few years, the MVP was won by perimeter players. It may not prove that they are more valuable during the playoffs, but on the games where it mattered most, perimeter attacks can be as deadly as offense in the post.

so portland looks right on track, oden is the big, aldridge compliments him with mid range, and broy is the playmaking perimeter player, so were set!

Chaos Revenant wrote:To me, there is a clear imbalance between perimeter play and post play. To win an NBA championship, it seems like one NEEDS a hall-of-fame caliber big-man, or an undisputed top 10 player of all time.

There is a very interesting article here that discusses this same issue, talking about basically needing one of the best players of all-time in order to win a title.

So I have three questions.

1: What can general managers do to work around this, whether in terms of finding elite big man talent or building their teams to compensake for the lack thereof?
2: What about the NBA produces this apparent imbalance?
3: If the NBA adoped college/international rules, would this imbalance be rectified?
4: What factors would one use to scout potential elite post players? From what I know of it, it seems to be a crapshoot; a player has to have both "measureables" and "intangibles", otherwise they turn into Kwame Browns.

Mostly, you stockpile talent, try to take advantage of draft opportunities and look for key trades. The teams that you discussed primarily won titles on the teams that drafted them.

From 79-80 onward, have a look:

80 Magic
81 Bird
82 Magic
83 Sixers
84 BIrd
85 Magic
86 Bird
87 Magic
88 Magic

9 years, 1 team that won without drafted talent (neither Moses Malone nor Julius Erving were drafted by Philly).

89 Isiah
90 Isiah
91 Jordan
92 Jordan
93 Jordan
94 Hakeem
95 Hakeem
96 Jordan
97 Jordan
98 Jordan

10 years, each title won by teams with a centerpiece they drafted.

99 Duncan
00 Shaq/Kobe
01 Shaq/Kobe
02 Shaq/Kobe
03 Duncan
04 Pistons
05 Duncan
06 Wade/Shaq
07 Duncan
08 Boston

10 more years and less drafted talent aside from 4 years from Duncan and the Wade/Shaq pair (Shaq obviously a trade but Wade the centerpiece). The Lakers signed Shaq and acquired Kobe in a draft-day trade. Shaq was the primary star, so presumably he counts as 3 exceptions over the 10 years.

The Pistons didn't draft Billups, either Wallace or Rip and the Celtics added Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett, neither of whom were drafted talent.

So if Duncan's titles and the Miami title are drafted talent, this past decade has been a 50/50 split... which still leaves the VAST preponderance of titles over the last 29 years belong to a centerpiece a team drafted. Think about that; in almost 3 decades, 6 teams (about 20%) have won without a centerpiece they drafted. 1 team in 5 has done it and there was a long gap between the first time it happened and it happening again (when it happened in a bunch).

As far as what produces the imbalance, big men take shots mostly closer to the basket and are therefore generally more efficient. They exert a big impact on a game through rebounding and help defense and radically alter the defensive alignment a team must play by sucking defenders away from the perimeter.

Some of these traits are ascribable to Michael Jordan during his two three-peats, since the triangle made extensive use of Scottie and MJ in the low-post the way it does with Kobe. The Triple-Post offense lives up to its name, in other words.

The idea is that you command the glass, you score efficiently and you reduce the other team's efficacy with good team defense and it's much more effective than relying on comparatively inefficient perimeter scorers as your centerpieces.

The NBA has a rectangular lane and no full zone rules, so unlike the FIBA game, it tends to emphasize low-post play as a major force, whereas perimeter play is considerably more prevalent in FIBA ball.

Of the NBA adopted the godawful international/college rules, the imbalance would not be corrected, it would be shifted to a perimeter-oriented imbalance, one that tends to slow down the game and almost eliminates the value of a really dangerous low-post scorer. The trapezoidal lane and zone rules radically alter the meaning of a low-block scorer and basically remove his usefulness because it's too difficult to consistently get him the ball. Having said that, part of the difference in the two major rules sets is that the NBA style tends to emphasize key players a lot more than team offense. Isolation scorers, be they perimeter- or post-oriented, are more common, whereas the scoring load (which is much reduced in general in FIBA) in the NBA.

Scouting potential post players, there are some key attributes but also several divisions of player.

You've got finesse (Al Jefferson) and power post players (Shaq), which differ noticeably, and then sort of hybrid guys like Duncan and Olajuwon.

General scouting tips look for a guy 6'10+ (Olajuwon 6'10, Duncan 6'11, Shaq 7'1, Ewing 7'0, D-Rob 7'1, Wilt 7'1+, Kareem 7'2+) with good mobility and cooridnation. You'd like him to be 240+ with broad shoulders and the sort of frame to be able to handle low-post play. Good wingspan helps, as does a strong base (e.g. powerful legs and lower torso); upper body can come with time but being around 240 is usually a good sign. Lighter guys will be looking for more athleticism, obviously, so you're talking about quick feet (up and down the court and laterally) with good body control and balance. Showing signs of being able to finish while taking contact is a good sign, as is a propensity to INITIATE contact, which is usually a good sign for drawing fouls. Someone like Al Jefferson, who typically shoots 50%+ and scores 20+ ppg these days, would be a lot better if he drew more fouls; that critical flaw is something that's holding back his overall potential, because his DrawF is terrible.

Vertical isn't critical; a guy who's 6'10 is generally going to have a standing reach around 9', give or take a few inches, which means it is nothing but a perfunctory effort to get up for a dunk. Important instead is how fast he can get to his peak vertical leap. 33" of vert does not deny a guy the ability to be a dominant post player (finesse, hybrid or power).

For a post guy, range is a secondary concern. As a hybrid or finesse guy, you want to see decent mechanics and the ability to shoot out to around 15 feet at least by the time you're drafting him. This isn't always the case (example: Karl Malone, who was more of a low-post guy when he was younger) but it's better to have some basic fundamental talent in this area than to have to work from the ground up. Power players, not so much. 60% from the line is more than acceptable, but of course guys with the physical makeup and skills to be pure power players are... pretty much Dwight and Shaq and Wilt before them. You need size, surpassing physical attributes and an incredibly aggressive mindset. Amare, were he to have emphasized low-post play rather than the high sidescreen, is another one with the sort of explosive athleticism, strength and aggression to involve himself in that kind of game. Kemp might've done, too, since he was a spectacular athlete.

Meantime, when you're watching the game, you're looking for a lot of differenr traits:

Awareness of the defense; is he usually aware of when the double-team is coming and does he have the timing to make a quick move or pass out before the double can really seal him in? What's his turnover rate like? Higher rates are more acceptable for power players, who are going into the teeth of a team's interior defense and usually draw more doubles.

What's his footwork like? Can he execute a basic spin, a drop-step, an up-and-under? Does he protect the ball well?

Scoring skills? How does he do it? Is it mostly dunks? Is it mostly short jumpers? Is it mostly short hook shots? Can he use both hands? Is he getting most of his points from one spot that a defense could attack? What do his scoring efficiency numbers look like on first touch? After a re-post? In the first 10 seconds of the offense and the last 10? What percentage of his buckets come off of transition baskets, alley-oops and rolls off of a pick (e.g. how much of his own offense does he create)?

Does he prefer to face-up or backdown? Does he understand how to lever his body in order to prevent himself from getting shoved off his spot or bumped while receiving a pass? This is a big reason why Kwame as a backdown center doesn't work; he's much more comfortable and capable facing up than backing down and doesn't bobble as many passes. It's an important skill.

What's his passing like? You're not really looking for no-lookers, behind-the-back passes and stuff like that here. Can he execute basic post passes? What does he look like in a pick-and-roll? A post split? Can he hit cutters slashing into the lane and shooters on the perimeter? How does he work in the re-post, where he kicks it out, gets better position and gets it back? Does he even do that?

If he has a little bit of range, what does he look like in the high post? Can he run hand-offs? Can he face up at the elbow?

It isn't a crapshoot to find a low-post guy, the problem is that GMs get wrapped up in certain attributes (height, athleticism) and college success without always taking into full consideration HOW these things happen. Or they think they can take someone with certain physical attributes and mould them into a backdown scorer (Kwame, though he has other issues too).

The European factor is one to consider; a lot of guys drafted are that because they have "versatility."

Post scorers aren't always very versatile. A lot of good ones had range only to the foul line or shortly past and were more comfortable beneath the foul line extended with their back to the basket than facing up from farther. The classic big men are actually not that common and come in waves. We're starting to see some potential now with Yao, Dwight, Al, Kaman, Okafor, JO (to an extent), Bynum, Oden and the tail-enders like Shaq and Duncan, as well as some more high post guys like Bogut, Brad Miller, etc and specialists like Haywood, Dalembert, Chandler and so forth.

But truly dominant post scorers are rare. By and large, you're talking about Kareem, Wilt, Shaq, Hakeem, Ewing, Moses and D-Rob. Bob Lanier was never a dominant offensive force and most of the other noteworthy names were the big shooters (Bells, McAdoo) or lesser guys like Issel, Daugherty, Neil Johnston, Artis Gilmore (efficient, but neither dominant nor prolific in that category). You get into the Mournings, the Sikmas, etc.

But do you truly need a "dominant" (and by implication "prolific") post scorer? No, Duncan has largely proved this. 4 titles in with 3 Finals MVPs (and 2-4 stolen DPOYs), Duncan has made it clear that a steady low-20s production with the occasional outburst is more than sufficient, you don't need a 26-30 ppg scorer down low to win.

The real issue is learning who has what capacities and then assembling a team around that player while giving him time to develop. Players are younger now because they don't do 3+ years of college with any frequency or consistency, so you need to give yourself longer timelines and put less pressure on them early in their careers. Too, hybrid types are more common, so you need to account for that fact in your gameplan and in your team plan.

The difficulty lies in dealing with the callow youth, putting the right pieces around him and working a reasonable timeline, as well as in finding a coach up to the task of properly utilizing such a player and helping him along his devleopmental track.

It's difficult to pull that all off, especially since it's noteworthy that you're still generally looking for one of the 20 best players in the history of the game, by and large, as well as healthy doses of luck and health (and fortuitous free agency scenarios).

CrookedJ wrote:
My question is why is it always perimeter guys that do the late game scoring?

Generally because they can get shots off quicker and usually with greater range; this is why guys like Dirk, Kareem and most of the bigs of the 90s (Dream, Ewing, D-Rob) were occasionally able to get off clutch shots in such scenarios, because they could score in certain ways (face-up, some jump-shooting, some not, skyhook, etc).

In general, perimeter guys are more mobile, can get the ball behind the timeline and advance it past so they don't need to wait to get entered into the offense with a post-entry pass and yeah, are more comfortable facing the basket and attacking from longer distances.

This is why most game-winners and such are mid-range and perimeter jumpers, rather than dunks or lay-ups; you're creating a quick shot and not usually get beneath the foul line extended.

wowwww


what a post!!

nice post yeah!

Well, why don't GMs consistently apply these principles?

And also, the ideal post player you're talking about, obviously they tend to go high in the draft. But what about the Boozers, the Jeffersons, the Bynums, the David Wests, (mid-late 1sts/2nd round picks) - why do they get passed over? Is it just because at least in the case of Jefferson/Boozer/West, they don't have "ideal height"?

Chaos Revenant wrote:Remember that Parker and Ginoboli weren't there for the first title, and Parker wasn't a star in 03 IIRC.

I'll agree with that in general though.

However, it seems pretty clear that you can win with superstar post player + solid perimeter player (see 1999 Spurs, though they may be an outlier like 04 Pistons), whereas superstar perimeter player + solid post player needs the perimeter player to be near Jordan-level.

Dude, the 1999 Spurs had both Duncan and Robinson. David Robinson was still a great player at that time, averaging 15.8pts, 10rebs and over 2 blocks and 2 assts. You can't really just say superstar post player + solid perimeter player without mentioning that they needed TWO, not one, premier big men to win that chip.

Detroit won without a HOF big-man (no way should Ben Wallace make the HOF if Rodman hasn't). No GOAT candidates either. Not even an MVP candidate. Zeke's Piston's didn't have a HOF big man either.

Chaos Revenant wrote:Well, why don't GMs consistently apply these principles?

And also, the ideal post player you're talking about, obviously they tend to go high in the draft. But what about the Boozers, the Jeffersons, the Bynums, the David Wests, (mid-late 1sts/2nd round picks) - why do they get passed over? Is it just because at least in the case of Jefferson/Boozer/West, they don't have "ideal height"?

I can't speak for the other guys but Bynum was passed over because he only played 30 games in high school and he was chubby as hell. He would have dropped a lot further than 10th had the Buss family not got that itch. When he came to the Lakers he was very raw.

Detroit is an "outlier" though, and really, the Lakers beat themselves more than anything.

Chaos Revenant wrote:Well, why don't GMs consistently apply these principles?

And also, the ideal post player you're talking about, obviously they tend to go high in the draft. But what about the Boozers, the Jeffersons, the Bynums, the David Wests, (mid-late 1sts/2nd round picks) - why do they get passed over? Is it just because at least in the case of Jefferson/Boozer/West, they don't have "ideal height"?

Bynum was the 10th pick in the draft, Big Al 15th (e.g. borderline lottery); Boozer and West were taken lower (Boozer in the second round) because they were smaller and not as athletic. People looked at them and worried about their ability to translate their game from the NCAA environment to the NBA environment; remember, Boozer's commonly listed at 6'9, even though he's 6'9.5" in shoes with a 7'2.25" wingspan and a 9'0.5" standing reach. Before an overemphasis on length brought about Jay Bilas (though it is indeed a valuable trait), height was generally used as a stronger marker pertaining to a player's suitability for the post at the NBA level.

Too, remember that Jefferson was picked straight out of HS and that affected the value of his contributions because he was so much bigger than his contemporaries at that level (and lower still because he wasn't an athletic stunner).

Al, of course, has the height. He was 6'9.75" in shoes, wingspan of 7'2.5" and a standing reach of 9'2. People worried about him being overweight, comparatively slow and abusing his height and weight advantage at the HS level (though it was noted at the time that he was pretty much the most advanced post scorer for his age, just about ever).

Bgil wrote:Detroit won without a HOF big-man (no way should Ben Wallace make the HOF if Rodman hasn't). No GOAT candidates either. Not even an MVP candidate. Zeke's Piston's didn't have a HOF big man either.

Sure, but that represents 3 titles in the last 29 years where the key components didn't include top-10 players or dominant centers.

As far as the Pistons of '04 are concerned, that has a massive asterisk next to it for me because of the injury to Malone and Kobe's idiocy, as well as the fairly random occurence of L.A.'s roleplayers missing just about every wide open shot they took all series. The Pistons played well but they are an atypical example of how to win an NBA title and they've proven incapable of returning to that form, despite making consecutive Finals appearances and then a long string of ECF appearances in general (a record streak, IIRC).

They did, however, have a repeat DPOY and in general a staggeringly talented defensive frontcourt, with excellent offensive balance and very good defenders all over. They also had a very good coach, strange and demented as he may be.

As far as the Bad Boys were concerned, they had Laimbeer (not a HoF center but a very good player anyway), two-time DPOY Dennis Rodman (who won DPOY the year they won their second title), Thomas (who was top-10 in MVP voting during four consecutive seasons in the mid-80s despite Jordan, Magic, Bird, Erving, Olajuwon, Ewing, Moses Malone and others)... And they had Joe Dumars, Mark Aguirre, etc.

They did have post scoring (particularly form Aguirre... and Dantley, earlier in the season of their first title) and a very balanced offense... and they didn't suffer badly on the glass. The importance of a big man comes from rebounding, offensive efficiency, interior defense and help defense, primarily.

The Pistons were, in '89, the 7th-best rebounding team in the league, the 3rd-best defense and the 7th-best offense in the league. They had rebounding, efficiency and defense. They had depth (Vinnie the Microwave comes to mind, as do Rodman, Salley and James Edwards). They had superb rotational help defense, much as did the Chicago Bulls... who were outstanding defensive squads without a dominant post player (Cartwright counts as a good man defender down low, though).

The year after, when they repeated, they were the 2nd-best defense, the 11th best offense and the 10th-best rebounding team. In '89, only 11 teams recorded fewer turnovers than them, too.

With Chuck Daly at the helm and that kind of defensive cast, and not lacking for scoring prowess, they were a very talented team that was extremely lucky that Larry Bird's back was conking out by that time. In '89, they swept the Celtics because Bird didn't play in the series. They did not face the Celtics the year after (by which point Bird was 33 and troubled with perennial back troubles, though he put about 24/9/9 on the Knicks in the first round).

So you're talking about some fairly favorable circumstances with both the Bad Boys and Larry Brown's '04 Pistons in terms of them bucking a very clear and dominant trend in the NBA over the last 3 decades. There isn't much room to debate it, since the facts are right there. The Pistons are pretty well the only team that have won without a truly dominant superstar and/or a franchise post scorer who plays excellent defense and it's happened 3 times in as many decades. This is not a recipe for annual success in terms of titles won.

The Pistons do very, very well in the regular season but they lack the wherewithal to stand against certain types of teams and ultimately collapsed in the face of one of those teams during the 90s. It's worth mentioning that Jordan's Bulls nearly beat them three times.

In '87-88, they went after the Pistons with rookie Ho Grant and Scottie and lost in five because Jordan had no offensive support from anyone (also because Sam Vincent and Dave Corzine shot under 38% from the field). That was a 5-game series. It was a 6-game series the next year, with more offensive support for Jordan. In '90, it was a tight 7-game series (that year was Phil Jackson's first, notably).

So with a fairly weak supporting cast and a mediocre to decent coach, Jordan's Bulls still nearly toppled the Pistons... further entrenching the power of the superstar versus the type of team that Detroit has used to win its titles.

tsherkin wrote:

Bgil wrote:Detroit won without a HOF big-man (no way should Ben Wallace make the HOF if Rodman hasn't). No GOAT candidates either. Not even an MVP candidate. Zeke's Piston's didn't have a HOF big man either.

Sure, but that represents 3 titles in the last 29 years where the key components didn't include top-10 players or dominant centers.

As far as the Pistons of '04 are concerned, that has a massive asterisk next to it for me because of the injury to Malone and Kobe's idiocy, as well as the fairly random occurence of L.A.'s roleplayers missing just about every wide open shot they took all series. The Pistons played well but they are an atypical example of how to win an NBA title and they've proven incapable of returning to that form, despite making consecutive Finals appearances and then a long string of ECF appearances in general (a record streak, IIRC).

They did, however, have a repeat DPOY and in general a staggeringly talented defensive frontcourt, with excellent offensive balance and very good defenders all over. They also had a very good coach, strange and demented as he may be.

As far as the Bad Boys were concerned, they had Laimbeer (not a HoF center but a very good player anyway), two-time DPOY Dennis Rodman (who won DPOY the year they won their second title), Thomas (who was top-10 in MVP voting during four consecutive seasons in the mid-80s despite Jordan, Magic, Bird, Erving, Olajuwon, Ewing, Moses Malone and others)... And they had Joe Dumars, Mark Aguirre, etc.

They did have post scoring (particularly form Aguirre... and Dantley, earlier in the season of their first title) and a very balanced offense... and they didn't suffer badly on the glass. The importance of a big man comes from rebounding, offensive efficiency, interior defense and help defense, primarily.

The Pistons were, in '89, the 7th-best rebounding team in the league, the 3rd-best defense and the 7th-best offense in the league. They had rebounding, efficiency and defense. They had depth (Vinnie the Microwave comes to mind, as do Rodman, Salley and James Edwards). They had superb rotational help defense, much as did the Chicago Bulls... who were outstanding defensive squads without a dominant post player (Cartwright counts as a good man defender down low, though).

The year after, when they repeated, they were the 2nd-best defense, the 11th best offense and the 10th-best rebounding team. In '89, only 11 teams recorded fewer turnovers than them, too.

With Chuck Daly at the helm and that kind of defensive cast, and not lacking for scoring prowess, they were a very talented team that was extremely lucky that Larry Bird's back was conking out by that time. In '89, they swept the Celtics because Bird didn't play in the series. They did not face the Celtics the year after (by which point Bird was 33 and troubled with perennial back troubles, though he put about 24/9/9 on the Knicks in the first round).

So you're talking about some fairly favorable circumstances with both the Bad Boys and Larry Brown's '04 Pistons in terms of them bucking a very clear and dominant trend in the NBA over the last 3 decades. There isn't much room to debate it, since the facts are right there. The Pistons are pretty well the only team that have won without a truly dominant superstar and/or a franchise post scorer who plays excellent defense and it's happened 3 times in as many decades. This is not a recipe for annual success in terms of titles won.

The Pistons do very, very well in the regular season but they lack the wherewithal to stand against certain types of teams and ultimately collapsed in the face of one of those teams during the 90s. It's worth mentioning that Jordan's Bulls nearly beat them three times.

In '87-88, they went after the Pistons with rookie Ho Grant and Scottie and lost in five because Jordan had no offensive support from anyone (also because Sam Vincent and Dave Corzine shot under 38% from the field). That was a 5-game series. It was a 6-game series the next year, with more offensive support for Jordan. In '90, it was a tight 7-game series (that year was Phil Jackson's first, notably).

So with a fairly weak supporting cast and a mediocre to decent coach, Jordan's Bulls still nearly toppled the Pistons... further entrenching the power of the superstar versus the type of team that Detroit has used to win its titles.

That's a massive slant to the situation. It's true but one could also say the Bulls won their titles because of Bird back, Worthy's ankle, Magic's retirement, Len Bias' death, and some pretty weak competition. You could say the same about the Shaq-Kobe Lakers... the Spurs had a ton of injuries during that period as did the Kings (Peja). Even the current Celtics were fortunate not to see a healthy Manu, Bynum, or Yao. The Suns thing killed them in previous seasons. JO's ankle in 2004. The current Bulls setbacks. Every year teams suffer injuries and setbacks. Right now I think it's all a coincidence.

I'd argue that the current Celtics don't have great post play as KG's a jumpshooter.

There's no technical or scientific reason why more teams like the Pistons can't win titles. If anything I think it's more affected by GM's and the leagues CBA/cap than anything else. Secondly by lumping post-play and non-post superstars (Jordan, Magic, and Zeke) into the same argument you're combining two extremely different strategies into one argument.

Inside-out is the key.

Bgil wrote:That's a massive slant to the situation. It's true but one could also say the Bulls won their titles because of Bird back, Worthy's ankle, Magic's retirement, Len Bias' death, and some pretty weak competition. You could say the same about the Shaq-Kobe Lakers... the Spurs had a ton of injuries during that period as did the Kings (Peja). Even the current Celtics were fortunate not to see a healthy Manu, Bynum, or Yao. The Suns thing killed them in previous seasons. JO's ankle in 2004. The current Bulls setbacks. Every year teams suffer injuries and setbacks. Right now I think it's all a coincidence.

Fine, ignore the injuries and the retirements and what-ever. The point remains that they had all the basic attributes of a dominant big on their team; the rebounding, the efficient offense, the strong team defense, and that's what made their titles possible. They were great teams in the 89 and 90 seasons, but they were also outliers against the last 3 decades of basketball and much rarer and more difficult as a path to the title than any of the others.

I'd argue that the current Celtics don't have great post play as KG's a jumpshooter.

And I'm inclined to disagree because he still does play a notable amount of time in the post and so too does Paul Pierce. Moreover, Garnett's a dominant defensive rebounder and interior defender who can be counted upon to score on the block as necessary. He's not an elite DrawF kind of guy because he likes to take fadeaways from the post, but still.

There's no technical or scientific reason why more teams like the Pistons can't win titles. If anything I think it's more affected by GM's and the leagues CBA/cap than anything else. Secondly by lumping post-play and non-post superstars (Jordan, Magic, and Zeke) into the same argument you're combining two extremely different strategies into one argument.

[/quote]

"Non-post" superstars?

You really want to call MAGIC and Jordan "non-post" superstars? Really?

Magic's MO, from his rookie year onward, was to get into the post whenever he could, something that grew only more true as he aged and moved towards the end of his career. Jordan played in the Triple-Post offense and is known as one of the best (if not the single best) post-up guards in NBA history.

Bad call...

Although to be fair, the Bulls are an example of a team that didn't win with a dominant big. They won 6 titles, but they had a top-3 player all-time and another top-50 player, as well as one of the best coaches of all-time in a system that emphasized post play. They were also very good defensively and good rebounding teams.