Apropos to nothing, I did a search for all the active centers in the NBA who averaged at least 60 games a season over the last 6 years: http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/tiny.cgi?id=ID9iF These are your Iron Men centers. Here's the list filtered for a PER greater than or equal to 18.0: http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/tiny.cgi?id=6UiJg Here's that same list when I drop the required games down to 30 over the last 5 seasons, letting in anyone who's played at least 30 games with a PER of 18 or greater: http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/tiny.cgi?id=UArmT Again, apropos to nothing. As a PS, here's all the centers with a PER of 18 or better who played at least 80 games in the NBA: http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/tiny.cgi?id=fldXC Short list for being an All-Time list. As a PPS, here's this season's centers with a minimum of 20 games: http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/tiny.cgi?id=0gTfm I guess my big point is that I'd rather have Oden at center for 41 games a year.
so basically, what you're telling me is that there have been 5 centers over the past 6 years who have produced for any amount of time at a level Greg's done over his "career", and that that list of 5 includes 4 #1 picks and Big Z? Makes sense to me.
I'm not pushing an agenda (well, not hard anyway). Just putting out a few lists to mull over. My original intent was simply to show that there aren't many centers that can play over 60 games a year, and even fewer who can do it with a good output (i.e., aren't Diop).
Very funny. There are 3 versions of what happened to Bias. 1) He went from boy scout to John Belushi in 24 hours. 2) He was never a boy scout to begin with. 3) He was murdered by persons unknown for reasons unknown. I guess you could say the people I hang out with aren't naive enough to believe #1, or paranoid enough to believe #3. Sensible, salt-of-the-earth people that you should take seriously.
I don't know. I remember there was a report with a red circle around his knee and some wierd report saying he was fragile and had a body of a 40 year old or something strange like that. I think most GMs disregarded the report, probably rightfully so, although given the rash of injuries in a short period (the big ones occured with no contact) . . . maybe the reports had some real substance to them.
I'm willing to bet that every GM in the league would have selected Oden that year. No one could foresee his devestating injury problems. The rest of those guy on that list, sure. Unlike Oden none of those guys were considered can't miss prospects.
Agreed. The way Oden played in the National Title game made it that much easier to pick him #1. He made Noah and Horford look like children in that game.
And this is where I respectfully disagree. The NBA is a marathon, not a sprint. Unless you can somehow guarantee that those 41 games all come late in the season and the play-offs, you won't win a title that way.
True, but I doubt it'll be a straight 41 games a year. I imagine it'll be more like a Grant Hill sine wave: 21 games this year, 75 next year, 50 the year after that, another 20 game season, a 35 game season, a 70 game season, etc. Basically, you have to just play and hope and have a good backup center. Durant is looking awfully pretty out there on the other side of the fence, on that nice, greener grass... I will admit. But I'm sticking with Oden.
That pick wasn't even Portland's worst pick of the decade, much less one of the top ten worst. Portland passed on CP3 to take Webster. In addition the Blazers at that time needed a point guard in the worst way. Webster is a barely average player while CP3 is one of the best players in the league. Most GM's would have taken Oden number 1 that year. Not one GM would have made the Webster pick.
Yes. The Webster move/pick--even given that I am glad we traded down, and even given that I still like the guy now--was a terrible one at the time and still stinks. Oden being in the top 10 seems fair, though... I love him, and think he's still a potential HoF'er, but so far he's missed more than 2/3 of his NBA career. As long as no one considers "busthood" to be permanent, I think that considering him one now isn't unreasonable. I'm still glad we have him, though, and I don't know that I would prefer Durant. Ed O.
To be fair Billy Knight might've if Marvin was off the board. He did pass on Roy for Shelden (I get to make babies with Candace Parker) Williams.
I guess Ford couldn't do this Top Ten, excuse me, Top Eleven, list without Oden. But as he points out himself, labeling him a bad pick is certainly premature. He's been good to the extent he's been healthy and had playing time. I think Martell Webster may prove to be a worse pick than Oden, if the big guy can at least play a few seasons without major injuries.
I was always confused by ATL and their choices! They had like 5 SF's and could have picked CP3 or DWILL!
