I think your definition of “elite” is way too generous just for the purpose of fitting your thesis.
If Horace Grant and Tyson Chandler are “elite”, I want to know what your definition of “elite” is, because right now it really comes off as whoever you want it to be.
I have a feeling if Golden State was winning, you’d suddenly consider David Lee (2x All-Star) or Bogut “elite.”
Dennis Rodman grows to 6’9” to fit your definition of big, while basketball-reference and nba.com list him as 6’7”, and he’ll tell you he’s 6’6”.
And you can’t take a snap shot of the 4 teams that look like they’ll be in the Conference Finals and say that proves a point. Because then that point dies when you have teams like OKC (oh wait, is Ibaka “elite” level now?) who made the Finals last year, and was a favorite to contend this year, before Westbrook went down.
And yet why do all these other teams with “elite” level bigs still lose, often to teams with lesser “elite” bigs?
Or teams with “elite” level bigs perform much worse when their “elite" level guard is injured (LAL, Chicago).
Or we could point to the failures of teams that drafted for size instead of best player available (Bowie, Olowokandi, O’Bryant, Swift: Robert or Stromile, Thabeet, etc.). You think Philly would have made a Finals had they drafted Camby (who I guess is “elite” since Chandler is) over Iverson in ‘96? What if Chicago went with Beasley over Rose in search of that elite big? You think they'd be better off?
Has Atlanta ever looked good with their two "elite" level bigs?
I think it’s more of a myth that there’s some magic formula for building a championship team.
Although that being said, I would think it’s common sense, that the game of basketball, where the goal is to get the ball into a 10 foot hoop while keeping your opponents from doing the same, that a team with strength and size would likely have the best chance of doing that. And I don’t particularly like next year’s Celtics chances without Garnett either, or with him for that matter.
I just don’t think your point, and the evidence you provided really proves anything.
Yes a team without a lot of good players usually won't win, and as LooseCannon pointed out there's only 5 positions, so good teams will usually have elite players at every position, especially when you basically narrow it down to 3 positions of big, guard, and wing that get to be filled by 5 players.
I agree with lots of what you are saying here but would just like to comment on the Iverson/Camby reference. Philly IMHO made the finals with truly elite defense and mediocre offense. Iverson was much more responsible for the mediocre offense then their elite defense. He was a high volume scorer with below average efficiency in the playoffs and even worse in those playoffs when Philly made the finals, it was Mutombo's elite defense(DPOY) actually playing better then expected on offense and occasionally needing to be doubled that made the difference IMHO. Iverson had a True Shooting percentage of 48% in the playoffs the year Philly made the finals which is bad and he shot under 39% from the field without hitting that many 3's..Mutombo had a True Shooting % of 58.4. Mutombo was also averaging 4.9 offensive boards per game in the playoffs and was truly dominant on D until he faced Shaq at least.
Camby has just as many finals appearances as Iverson... And when Camby made it, he was one of the big reasons for the Knicks surprise success as I believe an 8th seed. Since Ewing was old/hurt that NY Knick team did not have anyone as good as Mutombo IMHO who was DPOY when Philly made it. And unlike some DPOY Mutombo I believed deserved it.
Camby in his best year replacing Iverson wouldn't have beaten LA in all likelihood since the Lakers were a juggernaut but I certainly think they would have done better then what Philly did in that series. With Mutombo playing behind Shaq and Camby trying to deny the ball to Shaq, they would have had more success defensively containing a true monster sort of like what SA tried to do with their Twin Towers.. Shaq got away with lots of offensive fouls vs Mutombo in that series.
Prime Horace Grant I would actually call around KG's current level considering that he was very competent on offense and even better then that on D. And he could play more minutes then KG. When the Bulls lost him, they weren't nearly as good and even the return of Jordan didn't right the ship until Rodman came onboard. And when the Magic got him, they got much better and made the finals.
I'm not trying to say Grant was truly elite but I think he was underrated since people look at scoring too much. I'd actually rather have him on my team in his prime then Iverson in his average year. Other guards or wing players can miss shots and volume score but bigs that help you on both ends are somewhat hard to find.
Rodman wasn't tall but he did have enough strength savvy/quickness/tricks to guard some centers so I actually think its fair to consider him as someone who played like a legit PF those last 3 year title years in Chicago... He had lost some of his quickness that he had with Detroit. Chicago did obviously play mediocre true center bigs and get away with it because of Pippen, Jordan, Rodman, Kukoc.
I would agree with you that Chandler wasn't elite but he was very good and an elite fit with Dirk who I really don't consider a true big since he has more in common with Durant as a player then a typical big that either excels at protecting the rim, interior d, rebounding or scores posting up more.
I actually think part of Miami's problem right now is a lack of good defensive bigs. Bosh is finesse and Lebron is huge for a SF but he can't cover Hibbert and Miami doesn't want to put him on West too much.
Topic: Is it time to kill the small ball myth? (Read 5811 times)