GimmeDat wrote:Just_Bullz wrote:I still believe centres are not that relevant in the current era where perimeter and wing players dominate.
Look at AD, Boogie and Drummond. It's not like they can lead their team to contend.
I don't agree with this. You can point to dozens of the most elite players in the league from a variety of positions and use the 'they're not on a contender' argument.
How many 'contenders' are there?
GSW - Steph and KD, who have an array of star supporting pieces who could arguably be considered stars in their own right (Green, Klay).
CLE - LeBron. Best player in the league and of this era.
HOU - Harden and CP3, the latter of which was supposedly not a winner because he'd never gotten past X-round in the playoffs and because you 'can't win with a PG as your best player', apparently.
They're the only 3 teams I would consider contenders right now, though I should mention Boston because they have the 2nd best record right now, and if you want to point to that route, they're only all-star caliber player is a PG, which again goes against the so often heard 'can't win with a PG as your best player' mantra.
So unless your bar is Durant, Curry, Harden or LeBron, I don't see why you can criticise guys like AD, Boogie or Drummond for not being on a contending team.
Is Wall not conducive to winning because his team is below Detroit's, yet Kyrie, a similar caliber player at the same position, is a player conducive to winning? Ditto Lillard in Portland? Or isn't the argument in OKC, a team filled with elite perimeter talent, that there isn't enough ball to go around?
Having good wings is definitely important in todays league, and traditional big man post play is minimised as a high volume option in todays league, but I would argue that there isn't any conclusive correlation between high level big men and a lack of team success. Each situation is unique and you need to take in to account a variety of factors, such as supporting cast, as a primary example. (For example, Drummond has Bradley, Harris, Jackson and not much depth beyond that. Paul George has Westbrook, Melo, Adams and more. Are star wings not conducive to winning?).
The one and only really disadvantage I see is that it's harder to count on them as a 'go-to' offensive option down the stretch, and in particular, if you have 2nd tier star big men like Gobert or Drummond that do not have much of an offensive skill-set, you still need top scoring options, in the same way that if you have a #1 option guard, you probably still need a defensive anchor or overall high level defense.
With the Bulls for instance, I would suggest this - maybe Ayton, or whatever other big man option you pick (in the scenario that we somehow were back in the top 5 again), may not be your bona fide go-to #1 scoring option, but they will have a massive impact on the floor and a guy like Lavine can be the primary perimeter option when go-to shot making is needed, even though Lavine isn't a star player himself.
I think the most important thing is that you have enough talent and that it's well balanced to off-set the limitations of your star player, whatever position they play. But I don't think there's anything inherently limiting about having a stud big man. Any team would take a AD/Boogie/Drummond any day of the week, they have a transformative impact on any team and their success.
You're a better man than me sir. Kudos for this post, shouldn't even be necessary though.
