The eastern conference championship pitted Garnett against a backup until Bosh returned. The western conference championship paired Duncan (who wants to be called a PF) against Perkins (who played less than 30 MPG). Is this not counter evidence to the myth of the dominant center being necessary for eliteness? Could the Blazers be best served by drafting for talent vice size? (The counter to that is Golden State of course )
I get where you are going, but also the tema with the Center who played less than 30 MPG beat the Spurs, Miami last night, and Boston all lost.
I believe that Perkins was a key addition to OKC for toughness and defense, but is he what we think of when talk about "dominant" centers?
Well, truly dominant centers are rare. Talking about guys like Shaq, David Robinson, Hakeem. Where they are the focus of the offense, etc.
no I wouldnt view him as dominant, but I was just comparing the team with a Center who offers some toughness like Perkins vs the other comparisons you made, with Spurs, Boston, and Miami. Two were knocked out, and one is down in the finals. Also i look at what a difference Tyson Chandler made for Dallas in their run too. But as MM said above its probably more about interior defense, and scoring, than an actual Center
This. Imagine how totally unstoppable one of those guys would be in today's NBA against power forwards. We're talking Wilt-like numbers.
Thanks in advance for teeing up my conclusion! If one can make the conference finals in the NBA without a so-called dominant center, why can we not pair a couple of really good complementary PFs and not worry so much about taking a risky center prospect like Drummond (or Oden)?
I'm sorry, but it's faulty reasoning. The reason you can make the finals without a dominant center is because there are no dominant centers currently. Otherwise, good luck making the finals... So, the question becomes, is Drummond capable of being a dominant center? If you think the answer is yes, then you do whatever you can to make sure he's on your team.
Outside Bynum and Hibbert there aren't any bigs out there with true center size -- bulk + height. Howard is an oversized PF (6'9" w/o shoes) Cousins (6'9.5" w/o shoes) Amar'e (6'8.5" w/o shoes) Nene (6'9" w/o shoes) Perkins (6'8.5" w/o shoes) etc. etc. etc.
Drummond is intriguing because he's just a hair under 6'10" w/o shoes and he's 280 lbs. with only 7% BF, that's insane.
Then why is there so much agony over rolling the dice on Oden? We should all be content our team is sitting at home because we made the correct risky play. I seem to remember a Lakers team that used Magic as a center (albeit only one game, small sample size etc) and winning an NBA championship? It can and has been done (Chicago, Detroit). If you can draft one of those rare commodities then you should, obviously. But if such a draft opportunity does not exist, then should you go after a good PF or should you go after a risky center prospect?
IMO Yes. The game has changed. You still need defense and rebounding but abig centers these days are not as big of a factor. Sure if you find one that is big, quick, and can shoot then he will always be a factor in cruch time. But if he can't shoot free throws he won't even be in the game. Bigs are still important, but who was more important to the Clippers, Their 7' center or their 6' PG. Same with the Bulls. The Lakers had two 7 footers and looked horrible at times without a PG with skills. The smaller players can attack the basket better these days than the bigger players. And the rules help them do so.
Of course. But you're ignoring the bigger question and sidestepping the question of your own thread. Is Drummond one of those rare commodities? If not, then it's a non-issue. A somewhat above average center (aka Tyson Chandler level) certainly helps but isn't make it or break it.
I don't think that is a "myth". Everyone knows you can win without a dominant center. But it sure does not hurt to have a defensive juggernaught who is a great rebounder and finisher. I'd definitely take Drummond if he fell to the #6 spot....after of course, getting an Armada of medical analysis on him by someone OTHER than our dumb ass medial staff. But dang, thing of how gun shy Paul must be about drafting a center. But if Drummond falls to you at #6, I think you gotta take him....lighting can't hit you every day.
It depends. I, for one, believe that a top notch center (as opposed to PF, SF or SG) is the anchor for a great team. Can a team win without one? Sure. But a great center cures a lot of ailments. As to who to draft, that depends entirely on a team's personnel and how they want to play. If I wanted to run and play more of a switching defense, I may opt away from a true center. If I wanted to play more methodical and man-to-man, I want a center.
I guess I should have used the word "fantasy" instead of "myth". If a genetic freak appears on the scene, then whatever team (Orlando, LA) gets him is going to be unstoppable. But I believe we need to get over those rare occurrences and stop letting them dominate our thinking with respect to team construction and coaching choice. We have proof in front of us in these conference finals matchups that a team can be elite with a different approach. There are 5 guys playing at a time. Why does all style of play have to revolve around the fantasy of a truly rare genetic accident as one of those 5?
Isn't it more though, 2 post players who compliment each other? I mean if you have LA who likes to pick & pop, hit mid range shots etc....Then putting a banger type F\C next to him that likes to work in the paint IMO would seem to "fit" well.... I just don't believe you need to have all positions...Why not 3 forwards? I mena the NBA is all about matchups, and starting a sub par player at center just b\c you feel like you need to have a center never made sense to me...Instead of let's say starting a guy like Hickson....Most centers are not going to dominate\capaitalize against him anyway...and LA has the size to switch over on guys who could....
