If you could draft any retired Center to today's game, who would you pick?

[giordunk]

I think compared to other positions the Center position has undergone some of the biggest changes in the past two decades.

If you could bring one retired center to be your franchise centerpiece who would you pick?

Assume they adapt parts of their game to modern NBA, so for example guys who were good free throw and mid-range shooters you can reasonably expect to at least be a spot up 3 point shooter, but a guy like Shaq realistically wouldn't have extended his game to the 3 point range.

I think most HOF centers would do great in today's game.

The thing that draws me to Hakeem is he probably has the highest defensive versatility among the all-time Centers. Offensively probably a bit more jump shooting and I think we'd see more face-up or mid-range than the really traditional low post offense, but would still be highly effective.

Shaq - even though he'd dominate, I'd rather have the offensive versatility that some of the other guys bring.

[70sFan]

The thing that draws me to Hakeem is he probably has the highest defensive versatility among the all-time Centers.

Defensive versatility over Russell?

[tsherkin]

The thing that draws me to Hakeem is he probably has the highest defensive versatility among the all-time Centers. Offensively probably a bit more jump shooting and I think we'd see more face-up or mid-range than the really traditional low post offense, but would still be highly effective.

Hakeem was focally a face-up mid-range player in his actual career. He did operate backdown in the low post for several sets a game, but he was routinely facing up and attacking with his speed and handle, especially from the baseline or the elbow. He didn't play the same way Shaq, Wilt and Kareem did at all.

[penbeast0]

I'd go Russell. Gives you more mobility even than Hakeem, better rebounding, higher IQ, better passing at the cost of a lot of interior scoring presence which has been deemphasized to some extent today. Both have a history of being playoff risers; can't go wrong with either.

[tsherkin]

I'd go Russell. Gives you more mobility even than Hakeem, better rebounding, higher IQ, better passing at the cost of a lot of interior scoring presence which has been deemphasized to some extent today. Both have a history of being playoff risers; can't go wrong with either.

Kind of like a more mobile Gobert in the sense of a defensive/rebounding specialist who wouldn't be much of a scorer?

[KembaWalker]

Tim Duncan was a great mid range shooter, if he qualifies as someone you’d assign the hypothetical modern 3 ball per OP, I’ll take him. If not, I’ll take Hakeem or Garnett with a 3 ball

[SlimShady83]

Shaq, Hakeem or Ewing.

[Outside]

Most every great big man would be great today, but I'd pick Russell and slot him into a Draymond-type role on offense to offset his lack of shooting. His speed, agility, passing, and ballhandling would all be superior for the position, and he would be a devastating cutter on a floor with spacing. His mobility and anticipation would allow him to switch onto perimeter players effectively. His defense, rebounding, and BBIQ would be best in the league.

[durantbird]

Shaq

[tsherkin]

Tim Duncan was a great mid range shooter, if he qualifies as someone you’d assign the hypothetical modern 3 ball per OP, I’ll take him. If not, I’ll take Hakeem or Garnett with a 3 ball

"Great mid range shooter" is a little generous. He was a sub-70% career FT guy and he was 40.5% and 41% from 10-16 and 16-23 feet over his career. That's pretty distant from the guys who were really good. It was enough to open things up for him in-era, but that's a good 5% worse in both zones compared to KG, and more like 5-7% worse than Durant, 7% or so worse than Dirk, etc, etc, etc. Old Karl Malone was about 5% better from 16-23 feet.

Duncan was competent enough to hit shots around the elbow and at the FT line, but he was pretty tepid.

Assisted shots in the short corner might be more his thing, but in general, Duncan's shooting profile is more about his ability to hit shots around the FT line and at like 13 feet. Taking 20-25% of his shots from 10-16 feet and shooting 40.5% wasn't really that great.

[Outside]

I'd go Russell. Gives you more mobility even than Hakeem, better rebounding, higher IQ, better passing at the cost of a lot of interior scoring presence which has been deemphasized to some extent today. Both have a history of being playoff risers; can't go wrong with either.

Kind of like a more mobile Gobert in the sense of a defensive/rebounding specialist who wouldn't be much of a scorer?

The Gobert comparison made me cringe at first because Gobert has such gawd-awful hands and is terrible at finishing, but sorta kinda okay I suppose. Russell wouldn't be a primary scorer, but he would bring a lot more to the table offensively compared to Gobert, plus he'd be better defensively. And he wouldn't be a dick like Rudy. Russell would be an MVP-caliber glue guy.

[tsherkin]

I'd go Russell. Gives you more mobility even than Hakeem, better rebounding, higher IQ, better passing at the cost of a lot of interior scoring presence which has been deemphasized to some extent today. Both have a history of being playoff risers; can't go wrong with either.

Kind of like a more mobile Gobert in the sense of a defensive/rebounding specialist who wouldn't be much of a scorer?

The Gobert comparison made me cringe at first because Gobert has such gawd-awful hands and is terrible at finishing, but sorta kinda okay I suppose. Russell wouldn't be a primary scorer, but he would bring a lot more to the table offensively compared to Gobert, plus he'd be better defensively. And he wouldn't be a dick like Rudy. Russell would be an MVP-caliber glue guy.

Yeah, it was very, very loose, mostly aimed at "doesn't have a lot of scoring responsibility or ability to hurt you from range but is high-impact on D." And he's a 4-time DPOY, so I was trying to emphasize that.

Russ would be a top defender and rebounder. The "bigger Draymond" idea is an interesting one. The scoring, though, would limit him IMHO from any real MVP contention. It's worth mentioning that Russ wouldn't be the same kind of impact defender today (edit: as he was in his own time) because of how the game works, elite as he would surely be regardless as a mobile big with a good brain and all that.

[Outside]

Kind of like a more mobile Gobert in the sense of a defensive/rebounding specialist who wouldn't be much of a scorer?

The Gobert comparison made me cringe at first because Gobert has such gawd-awful hands and is terrible at finishing, but sorta kinda okay I suppose. Russell wouldn't be a primary scorer, but he would bring a lot more to the table offensively compared to Gobert, plus he'd be better defensively. And he wouldn't be a dick like Rudy. Russell would be an MVP-caliber glue guy.

Yeah, it was very, very loose, mostly aimed at "doesn't have a lot of scoring responsibility or ability to hurt you from range but is high-impact on D." And he's a 4-time DPOY, so I was trying to emphasize that.

Russ would be a top defender and rebounder. The "bigger Draymond" idea is an interesting one. The scoring, though, would limit him IMHO from any real MVP contention. It's worth mentioning that Russ wouldn't be the same kind of impact defender today (edit: as he was in his own time) because of how the game works, elite as he would surely be regardless as a mobile big with a good brain and all that.

Regarding the bolded, he'd obviously be a different defender than he was during his time, but couldn't he be a taller, longer, faster Draymond with GOAT-level defensive IQ, which is arguably Draymond's greatest asset? Draymond is considered by many to be the best defensive player of his generation.

[durantbird]

Why only retired? What if we include Jokic in the mix?

[tsherkin]

Regarding the bolded, he'd obviously be a different defender than he was during his time, but couldn't he be a taller, longer, faster Draymond with GOAT-level defensive IQ, which is arguably Draymond's greatest asset? Draymond is considered by many to be the best defensive player of his generation.

Yeah, I'm not debating the notion that Russ could be the best defender in the league. I presume he would be, if in slightly different fashion.

I very specifically meant he wouldn't exert the same specific level of impact he did in the 60s because it's not actually possible to do that anymore with the many changes the interceding decades have brought to the game. That's all.

[tsherkin]

Why only retired? What if we include Jokic in the mix?

Because that's the root conceit of the thread xD

[durantbird]

Why only retired? What if we include Jokic in the mix?

Because that's the root conceit of the thread xD

Yeah I know, my question is why did the OP limit this to retired players only. Could be interesting to discuss Jokic here as well, but maybe at a different post

[penbeast0]

I'd go Russell. Gives you more mobility even than Hakeem, better rebounding, higher IQ, better passing at the cost of a lot of interior scoring presence which has been deemphasized to some extent today. Both have a history of being playoff risers; can't go wrong with either.

Kind of like a more mobile Gobert in the sense of a defensive/rebounding specialist who wouldn't be much of a scorer?

Quick, mobile, high post passer with limited scoring set that is elite rebounder, defender, shotblocker and GOAT BBIQ. So not quite Rudy Gobert (though I like Gobert) Like a mature Alex Sarr (dreaming!)

[tsherkin]

Why only retired? What if we include Jokic in the mix?

Because that's the root conceit of the thread xD

Yeah I know, my question is why did the OP limit this to retired players only. Could be interesting to discuss Jokic here as well, but maybe at a different post

Probably because he specifically wanted to exclude active players.

EDIT: Yes, another post might make for an interesting discussion.

[tsherkin]

I'd go Russell. Gives you more mobility even than Hakeem, better rebounding, higher IQ, better passing at the cost of a lot of interior scoring presence which has been deemphasized to some extent today. Both have a history of being playoff risers; can't go wrong with either.

Kind of like a more mobile Gobert in the sense of a defensive/rebounding specialist who wouldn't be much of a scorer?

Quick, mobile, high post passer with limited scoring set that is elite rebounder, defender, shotblocker and GOAT BBIQ. So not quite Rudy Gobert (though I like Gobert) Like a mature Alex Sarr (dreaming!)

Yeah, again, the Gobert comparison was meant to be a loose nod to high-end defense, not a specific stylistic thing. More like "this is a wicked defender who shall never be used as a volume scorer."