og15 wrote:Liam_Gallagher wrote:Insert any stretch 4 from the 2000s.
Unless they can't defend and would get picked on defensively with switches and targeting.
For example, Ryan Anderson got worse, not at shooting the ball or shooting, but at being able to stay on the floor and not get picked on defensively.
Also since everyone shoots, and a lot of big 3's play the 4, depending on the level of shooter you are, you might no longer be unique.
On the other hand, the big who can block shots and shoot 3's has move value now. A guy like LaFrentz for example could maybe be seen as more valuable.
Agree with the defensive problems of all these stretch 4s, but there's an offensive problem for them in the modern NBA too. Nowadays, shooters who can't attack a close out aren't very valuable. Defenses are better at closing out on shooters, so if all it takes is a high-energy close out to take away someone's shooting, they aren't seeing the floor. Every rotation shooter nowadays has enough handles to counter a close out. Shooting bigs of the past didn't.
The sheer number of guys who can shoot has caused defenses to adjust how they guard the 3-point line. Some guys who were "ahead of their time" were good because they were ahead of their time, and wouldn't be special in a league where more people do the thing that made them special.
Ryan Anderson was a perplexing player because he was an elite 3-point shooter, but also an elite offensive rebounder. Those 2 things almost never go together, since you have to be out of position for one to do the other. He fell off pretty early in his career with injuries and personal tragedies.
