Has it though? The Warriors starting center is Zaza Pachulia. The Cavs starting center is Tristan Thompson. The Celtics starting center is Al Horford. The Spurs starting center is old man Pau Gasol. There are definitely some really good centers in the league.... but their teams suck. Boogie couldn't elevate the Kings.... or the Pelicans. Jokic is supposedly great, but the Nuggets are currently on the outside looking in. Centers might be valuable, but we're nowhere near where things were when there was Hakeem, and Shaq and Ewing and Robinson, etc.
I don't think there was ever any debate on whether or not they were obsolete, but rather where they should stand in the pecking order as an offensive option. You need quality centers on your team, but do you build your offense around them? A good one sure is a nice luxury to have when healthy. Centers are still needed on offense, setting screens, finishing around the basket, getting offensive rebounds, keeping the defense honest so your guards have room to attack.....but as a priority on most teams, they are no longer #1. We have 3 centers on the team and they are all hurt to some extent. It is hard for those bigs guys to stay healthy with all that weight being put on those small bones and tendons. Defensively of course they are a must. But another question is do you rely on one center and pay him the max or go the center by committee route so your season is not over when one goes down?
I was just watching Moneyball again this morning and the shift in how the NBA approaches big men reminds me a lot of that movie. I was reading a synopsis of the book on Wikipedia and I thought this sentence was really interesting. "Statistics such as stolen bases, runs batted in, and batting average, typically used to gauge players, are relics of a 19th-century view of the game and the statistics available at that time. The book argues that the Oakland A's' front office took advantage of more analytical gauges of player performance to field a team that could better compete against richer competitors in Major League Baseball (MLB)." Instead of using RBIs, stolen bases, and batting average, they looked at on-base percentage and slugging percentage to evaluate talent. It sure reminds me of ppg, rpg, and assists being an old relic to evaluate talent in the NBA. Now we see stats like TS%, PER, +/- and things like that. It's really quite fascinating.
Definitely fascinating! I wish I would have had wind to this line of thinking when deciding to go to college (graduated HS in 2000). I wish I would have studied statistics or something that would have put me on the track of sports analytics. I'm sure it would have been a dream job...now I have a dusty Civil Engineering degree and I do something completely different...sigh.
Question..... What non-player or league employee has affected American pro sports more than any other person in the last 50 years? Answer.... This guy, Bill James. The father of sabermetrics. While working as a security guard at a cannery he wrote the original Baseball Abstract (which is to sports) what Albert Einstein's world as a patent clerk. How players in baseball, NBA and even NFL are valued, signed, arbitration on their contracts, the rules of every fantasy sport draft you've ever been in. All start from this son of a Kansas janitor who was bored on his grave yard shift at the cannery. All I got from working night shift was a bunch of empty Red Bull cans.
It still is if you ask me. There are only a few "REAL" centers in the game. I see twenty something PFs starting in the 5 spot.
Is the position "obsolete", or "underfilled"? You need to develop and exploit any advantage. If no one else has a decent center, and you do, exploit the mismatch. That doesn't mean your center can't still pass out to a three point specialist as appropriate. If you use your big man to his advantage, it means you have another means of helping your shooters get open.
We have a starting five and you could argue One of Turner or Crabbe, after that the roster needs to be cleared even if we bring in 3 bigs from the draft. Anything would be better than what we got from our bigs this year. Ezeli just didn't pan out. Big Ed seemed to have a major drop off for whatever reason and Meyer's is what he is. Nurkic just as a screener and defensive force has shown us what our shooters can do with some serious help down low. If NO picks his best 3 bigs from the draft I will support him and whatever choices he makes. Having said that there is plenty of good guards and SF'S in this draft also. That 6'5 kid Frank Ntilikina looks like he could be special. He may be unreachable though. Just my two cents. Nurkic has seriously changed the entire franchise. NO deserves major props for this move!
Speaking of Ezeli: I always thought we got him for the playoffs, and we'd ease him in the last month of the season. Nope. We sure could use him now. But Ed going down was the big blow. We literally have no center at the moment. Which wouldn't necessarily be catastrophic, but we don't even have a starting quality power forward to pick up the slack.
Good distinction. The problem is Olshey's insane planning. Olshey gave Meyers Leonard $41M (caving in to the strong will of Leonard, who bet on himself to improve in 2015-16, then was awful, but still got a raise from Olshey's ridiculous $40M offer despite no competition from other teams). This destroyed us at the center position, because it left hardly any money, so we only got Ezeli. This, despite Olshey knowing that he would be trading Plumlee because he couldn't afford him.
In that case, the question would have been: Remember when we thought the HCP was a Blazers fan who hated the Lakers? You had us fooled pretty good there for a couple years. BNM
I see these "new" stats thrown around and talked about quite a bit these days in the forums and by commentators/analysts, but are they being used by GM' s to put together rosters that can contend against the top tier teams? It seems Neil Olshey maybe using it, in getting guys like Nurkic and Harkless. It seems like it would be difficult to have a whole roster composed of those types of players? Is it that those types of players are rare, is it the rising cost of an NBA roster these days? If it were that easy just to assemble 15 guys who's numbers in these "new" categories are high, wouldn't every team have done it? Wouldn't the NBA be far more competitive than it is? How new are these type of stats anyway?
I'm kind of hoping we keep Ezeli and get rid of Meyers....if Ezeli can come back next year healthy and play off the bench behind Nurk...Jesus God we'd be a hell of a team.
Moneyball in basketball seems a lot more difficult to rely on than baseball. Maybe not as a helpful tool but certainly as a major part of your analysis. Pitcher vs hitter can easily be tracked. But in Basketball it is more team oriented. I assume eventually the algorithms will get there, but I am skeptical that they have the technology now. Seems like they would need a lot better videos breaking down every single play.
I think it has effected the game in a more broad range. Many more three pointers are shot now, compared to in the past.
