This league STOPPED revolving around big men almost a decade ago and revolves around wings now.
I don’t understand all you guys continually trying to trade our wings who are performing for a big...
It’s like your stuck in the 80s
All great big men retired more than a decade ago so that's to be expected. I expect us to have a renaissance of bigs soon with how talented the best young big men are.
The problem with modern bigs are they are not as great as current wing players as all of them have question marks. Bigs from previous generation have proven they can lead teams to championship rounds. The closest to them is Giannis and he doesn't even play like a real big. Both Jokic abd Embiid's campaign so far were underachievements too.
They can be complimentary pieces on championship teams, but not alpha leaders (Love, Green, Ibaka, Gasol)
Wew it's the winning bias at work again. The problem with the modern bigs is that they don't have supporting casts that are as great as the current wing players. Bigs from the previous generation didn't prove squat when they had bad supporting casts around them. Giannis is more of a PF imo so yeah he doesn't count. And eh I think Jokic and Embiid are doing fine, they just lost to some really good teams (that Raptors team was built to scale around one of the greatest offensive anchors ever in Kawhi, that Blazers squad had an All-NBA backcourt that was designed to take advantage of Jokic, and our very own 2018 Celtics were tailor made to stymie the 2018 76ers).
Comparing Embiid/Jokic/KAT/AD to Love, Green, Ibaka and Gasol? lol this is winning bias at its finest, you don't even need to be a stats nerd to see the gulf in quality between those two groups (although Green is an All-NBA level big man with a special skillset that scales up with talented teammates).
Btw I'm not slating you but I think your opinion is heavily influenced by factors out of a player's control, no matter how good they are.
I'm winning bias as much as you are stat biased. Each of these big men have glaring flaws that prevents them from taking their team to the next level.
Jokic - a defensive liability and can be exposed in a 7 game series. It doesn't help that his back backcourt partner isn't exactly a defensive stud either.
Giannis - can't shoot outside nor does he have post up game. He's pretty reliant on transition basket and slashing. .His flaws was exposed last year against the raptors.
Aldridge - Have the classic skills of a post up big and a reliable overall offensive arsenal but also lacks defensive chops.
Embiid - soft against physical defenders.
Towns - another oversized SF on a Center's body. Can't also handle much physicality.
Davis is the closest one on winning but expect Lebron to get all the credit.
Majority of the Centers from 90s and 2000s are complete 2-way players with unstoppable offensive arsenals. Like I said, they can win as complementary players but not as the primary face of the franchise. No teams with a big as the face of their franchise has won an NBA title nor lead his team to Finals since 2011.
Wings are more important than bigs in todays game, with some exception of ones capable of defending perimeters or spread the floor.
Only that the stats I'm looking at are tempered with the eye test if they're box stats, and the ones that aren't are...literally how they affect the scoreboard with luck/teammate/opposition adjustments? Your argument was pretty much "rah rah they can't drag bad supporting casts to deep playoff runs (even though losing in 7 games in the second round is a pretty deep playoff run)", I think most people would rate your winning bias much greater than whatever "stat bias" I have. But I'll humour you and apply your logic in your post above to rate our wings not named LeBron who're apparently a level above current superstar big men.
Kawhi - classic high efficiency volume scorer who has glaring shortcomings in passing and vision that renders him unable to make high quality passes to take advantage of double teams and unlock his teammates' potential on offense. Had the luck to play on stacked teams tailored to scale around him - the Raptors were an amazing defensive team that needed a one-dimensional offensive anchor in Kawhi, ditto for the 2016-2017 Spurs. Overall defense is overrated - his team defense can be poor at times and his man to man defense is erratic. Can't carry teams to championships in the manner you want unless they're stacked and built to scale around his game.
Butler - athleticism has declined enough to eat into his defense, it's no longer elite. Offense has also fallen - he's a wing with a problematic outside game that causes spacing issues when his main offensive game is to drive. Isn't good enough to be your elusive superstar who can take teams to the next level, but can't scale well with talented teammates due to his lack of spot up shooting and ball dominance.
George - efficient volume scorer, but is a rung down from great offensive anchors like Kawhi. Also has mediocre passing and vision, so he's not your dream wing who can carry teams to the next level. Elite defense makes him more of a "complementary piece" than the bigs you're nitpicking.
Hayward - average defensively, has lost a good amount of speed and athleticism to guard quicker perimeter players, but isn't big enough to guard up a position at a high level. Good secondary ballhandler with good vision, but doesn't have the scoring game to your ideal wing that carries teams to playoff success. Even more of a "complementary piece" than the bigs you've mentioned.
This is your winning bias at work again. The 90s and 00s had bigs with incredibly resilient offensive games, but they also had "complementary" big men - great big men like Garnett and Robinson were two way bigs that couldn't manage to ramp up their scoring, but were so good at other facets of the game (defense, passing, shooting) that they could still be the best player on a championship team. And not all great big men were two way beasts - Dirk was a very problematic defender, Shaq had issues with defense from time to time and Barkley was a sieve. Yet they led teams to deep playoff runs or even titles when they had viable supporting casts around them, and are now touted as levels higher than our current superstar big men just because they won. The bigs you've mentioned (with the exception of Aldridge) can all lead title contenders if they have a decent supporting cast that fits their style of play, they're no different from the modern day wings and great big men of the past that you're pumping up, they're all great players.
Topic: Do you think the Celtics are considering sticking with all 4 long term? (Read 14394 times)