Building a NBA Franchise right now...Who would you take

[layupdrill]

A young, dominant center(Dwight Howard)

or

A young, game changing point guard(Chris Paul)

[BlackSwordsMan]

tim duncan

[IronMexican]

Of those two, CP3. 9 times out of ten, the big man.

[layupdrill]

tim duncan
good job...unfortunately not an option, else I couldve thrown in other established champions like Kobe.

Two young players who neither have made it to the Finals, but are the cornerstone of their franchises are the selections.

[Thunder Dan]

depends on who they are, if the point guard was Chris Paul and the center was Dasanga Diop I would have to take Chris Paul-

[DPG21920]

CP3. With out a good point guards big men are worthless.

[Chieflion]

Dwight Howard. After that, I would hire a guy like Kareem to teach him post moves.

[lil_penny]

I would take dwight personally.. a good big man is hard to come by.

[Rogue]

Josh Howard

[timvp]

Of those two, CP3. 9 times out of ten, the big man.

:tu

[dougp]

If by using those names, you mean that caliber of player, in today's NBA? The big man - 10-15 years ago, the PG.

[Red Hawk #21]

It depends, if its a PG that makes the Players around him better then I would go with him.

[Ghazi]

Howard has a way higher ceiling than Paul IMO. Paul's game is essentially completed at this point, Howard can still add to his arsenal of offensive moves, improve his defensive IQ, FT shooting, etc.

[endrity]

^Pretty much. This remains a big man's game, I take Superman.

[024]

for some reason, good true point guards have not lead their teams to a championship for a while. jason kidd comes into mind, john stockton, gary payton and steve nash also. all hall of fame point guards, even payton. billups and the pistons won one but billups was hardly the leader stockton and kidd were. billups was just a piece on the pistons the same way parker was just a piece of the supporting cast put around duncan. franchise players that are point guards can't seem to lead a team to win it all.

[FreeMason]

Big man for the Defense bonus.

[m33p0]

basketball has always been a big man's game.

[layupdrill]

Im talking about those particular players

Howard or Paul

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

This is a big man's game. Dwight Howard.

[m33p0]

Im talking about those particular players

Howard or Paul
Howard, no doubt.

[dirk4mvp]

basketball has always been a big man's game.


Is that why the best player of all time was a 2 guard?

[monosylab1k]

Is that why the best player of all time was a 2 guard?

Unfortunately there's Laker fans out there who think you're talking about Kobe.

[noob cake]

There are only a few franchise level center, slightly more point guard, more power forwards, lot of sg/sf.

In terms of rarity

Center > PG > PF > SF > SG

Thats why you take Dwight over Paul.

[DPG21920]

No way. Great point guards are more useful than Bigs. Bigs do not handle the ball 90% of the game, the guards do. Without good pg's, the bigs are rendered useless for the most part.

The play makers like CP3 always have the ball in their hands and set the tempo. That is not to say that bigs suck, but when it comes to guards vs bigs, great guards > great bigs.

[IronMexican]

DPG, I bet the Nets are so glad the had Kidd over Shaq or Duncan in 02 and 03.

[DPG21920]

DPG, I bet the Nets are so glad the had Kidd over Shaq or Duncan in 02 and 03.

Did I say always? I can play this game as well. I bet that the Knicks were so glad they drafted Bowie over Jordan.

Or I bet the Rockets were glad they drafted the dream over him.

[m33p0]

Is that why the best player of all time was a 2 guard?
how many 2 guards are on the top 20 all time greatest list? how many centers are on that list?

[IronMexican]

9 times out of 10, you take the big. And you are comparing a bust to a the GOAT. At least I brought up one of the greatest PG's in NBA history.

[dirk4mvp]

how many 2 guards are on the top 20 all time greatest list? how many centers are on that list?

All of those centers are not better than the 2 guard that's at the top.

[m33p0]

No way. Great point guards are more useful than Bigs. Bigs do not handle the ball 90% of the game, the guards do. Without good pg's, the bigs are rendered useless for the most part.

The play makers like CP3 always have the ball in their hands and set the tempo. That is not to say that bigs suck, but when it comes to guards vs bigs, great guards > great bigs.
having a great center makes the game easier for the whole team because you automatically get someone who can make easy baskets just by lobbing the ball anywhere near the rim; and your team dramatically improves defensively. case in point howard for the magic.

[DPG21920]

9 times out of 10, you take the big. And you are comparing a bust to a the GOAT. At least I brought up one of the greatest PG's in NBA history.

So did I with Hakeem.

[DPG21920]

having a great center makes the game easier for the whole team because you automatically get someone who can make easy baskets just by lobbing the ball anywhere near the rim; and your team dramatically improves defensively. case in point howard for the magic.

This is not say Howard would be a bad choice. But as I already outlined, just look at who is controlling the ball the vast majority of the game. This is only in the case of GREAT point guards for which I am making the argument.

[m33p0]

All of those centers are not better than the 2 guard that's at the top.
yes but there's just one of him and like, what, 5-6 centers.

[DPG21920]

Look at all the great bigs that were drafted in the Jordan era, almost none of them have rings.

[IronMexican]

I take the big, brah. Outside of Magic and MJ, I wouldn't want to start my franchise off with a guard.

[m33p0]

This is not say Howard would be a bad choice. But as I already outlined, just look at who is controlling the ball the vast majority of the game. This is only in the case of GREAT point guards for which I am making the argument.
if you look at how they entered the league... paul foh shur. yao would be a better candidate coz howard didn't look all that great when he started.

but if you compare them now, i'd pick howard. he makes nelson look like an all-star.

[m33p0]

I take the big, brah. Outside of Magic and MJ, I wouldn't want to start my franchise off with a guard.
i'd pick magic over mj to start a franchise, btw. a 6-9 point guard is unheard of and gives you automatic advantages.

[Kamnik]

considering this is a spurs forum and we won 4 titles in TD era the result is quite obvious

[DPG21920]

I take the big, brah. Outside of Magic and MJ, I wouldn't want to start my franchise off with a guard.

Well that is why it is a poll, people will not always agree.

[m33p0]

Look at all the great bigs that were drafted in the Jordan era, almost none of them have rings.
that's the fault of the GM not the player. anyway, of the great centers of that era that i could think of, only ewing didn't win a ring.

[IronMexican]

i'd pick magic over mj to start a franchise, btw. a 6-9 point guard is unheard of and gives you automatic advantages.

Same hurr. Just cause you are the best player, doesn't mean you have the biggest impact. Bigs have a FAR bigger impact than a guard in the game.

[BUMP]

Unfortunately there's Laker fans out there who think you're talking about Kobe.

Bernard Pollard? why?

[DPG21920]

that's the fault of the GM not the player. anyway, of the great centers of that era that i could think of, only ewing didn't win a ring.

Barkley (if we are considering bigs, like Duncan being a PF), Ewing, Malone, to name a few more.

[DPG21920]

Same hurr. Just cause you are the best player, doesn't mean you have the biggest impact. Bigs have a FAR bigger impact than a guard in the game.

How can you say that? Question, who gets the ball to the big? If the point guard cannot shoot or get the ball to the big he is almost rendered useless. The pg is the quarterback, not the big.

[m33p0]

Barkley (if we are considering bigs, like Duncan being a PF), Ewing, Malone, to name a few more.
we're talking about BIG big, as in centers.












And Malone is soft.... (thought i'd throw it out there :lol)

[IronMexican]

AI, John Stockton, Gary Payton(Miami? No.)

[DPG21920]

having a great center makes the game easier for the whole team because you automatically get someone who can make easy baskets just by lobbing the ball anywhere near the rim; and your team dramatically improves defensively. case in point howard for the magic.

If the pg sucked at throwing those lobs, what would Howard do?

[DPG21920]

Exactly, there is cases everywhere for both sides. Fact of the matter is, you cannot in any way substantiate the claim that bigs "clearly" impact the game more.

[m33p0]

How can you say that? Question, who gets the ball to the big? If the point guard cannot shoot or get the ball to the big he is almost rendered useless. The pg is the quarterback, not the big.
you can look at the orlando magic themselves to counter that argument. get any borderline allstar point guard to run that team and i'll say howard will make him into a legitimate allstar. imagine tony parker running that team, or even devin harris.

[m33p0]

If the pg sucked at throwing those lobs, what would Howard do?
you get a better point guard. guards are dime a dozen in the league. and i'm betting a good number of them can throw a decent lob.

[DPG21920]

Or a guy can take Chandler and make him into something when he is not that good. It works both ways.

[IronMexican]

Shaq and Duncan have 8 of the past 10 championships, that's how I know.

[m33p0]

Height is might, brah... Height is might.

[DPG21920]

you get a better point guard. guards are dime a dozen in the league. and i'm betting a good number of them can throw a decent lob.

We are talking great here, just not run of the mill guards.

[DPG21920]

Shaq and Duncan have 8 of the past 10 championships, that's how I know.

Jordan has more titles than either, that is how I know.

[m33p0]

We are talking great here, just not run of the mill guards.
i'm siding with centers with mediocre guards. you take great guards with mediocre centers. just to make the argument clearer.:p:

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

Bernard Pollard? why?

because he injured Tom Brady.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

Look at championship teams besides the 1990's Bulls. Since Jordan retired, it's been a Duncan & Shaq battle more or less. A team led by Hakeem won it the 2 years MJ was retired.

Before MJ, it was impossible to win a title w/o a good big man.

Besides the MJ era, basketball has been far and away a big man's game.

[Jmoney]

Look at all the great bigs that were drafted in the Jordan era, almost none of them have rings.



Great bigs in the 80's drafted

Hakeem Rings

The Admiral rings

Ewing Zero

I'm at a loss to think of any other great bigs taken in top 5

Even if you count the early 90's

Shaq rings

Mutumbo Ring



So yeah you might to rework that theory.

If you look at the 80's and early 90's only one other guy besides Jordan got a ring and he did not LEAD his team for that ring.

If you look at the TOP 5 picks in the last 30 years PF/C drafted early that became great have a far greater rate of bringing home the rings than SG/PG's have done. The ONLY exception to this rule in the last 30 years was in fact MJ. However it took him 8 years to get another big skill player in Pippan and a slew of role players before he finally won.

The fact is you can only teach so much but you can't teach BIG. Howard now has a chance working with Ewing to do something Ewing never could do. Lead his team all the way and get himself a ring. CP3 well lets just say he's an amazing player but he's not gonna get his team to the big game.

[Rapper]

Basketball belongs to big men

[layupdrill]

Interesting replies on this one...

[baseline bum]

Of those two, CP3. 9 times out of ten, the big man.

My thoughts exactly.

[DPG21920]

Great bigs in the 80's drafted

Hakeem Rings

The Admiral rings

Ewing Zero

I'm at a loss to think of any other great bigs taken in top 5

Even if you count the early 90's

Shaq rings

Mutumbo Ring



So yeah you might to rework that theory.

If you look at the 80's and early 90's only one other guy besides Jordan got a ring and he did not LEAD his team for that ring.

If you look at the TOP 5 picks in the last 30 years PF/C drafted early that became great have a far greater rate of bringing home the rings than SG/PG's have done. The ONLY exception to this rule in the last 30 years was in fact MJ. However it took him 8 years to get another big skill player in Pippan and a slew of role players before he finally won.

The fact is you can only teach so much but you can't teach BIG. Howard now has a chance working with Ewing to do something Ewing never could do. Lead his team all the way and get himself a ring. CP3 well lets just say he's an amazing player but he's not gonna get his team to the big game.

Barkley, Malone...Convenient that you leave them out.

[Drom John]

I'd start with LeBron.
I'd take Howard over Paul with doubt.
As to Michael Jordan, I'd take Olajuwon a priori. Even several years into their careers, getting Olajuwon as second choice would be sufficient. Olajuwon could be the start for any team. Jordan takes the pieces to fit just right. Jackson was the carpenter.

[lebomb]

Always, always, always, and I mean ALWAYS take a great center over a great point. ALWAYS. Ask any GM in the league that is missing a player at both positions and see which he takes first. Guaranteed to be the center.

[hater]

I hater CP so I would pick the other guy, but I would not be happy with it

[turiaf for president]

paul for sure

[hater]

Always, always, always, and I mean ALWAYS take a great center over a great point. ALWAYS. Ask any GM in the league that is missing a player at both positions and see which he takes first. Guaranteed to be the center.

well this is only because law of averages makes the Big guy more valuable. not because it results in championships

[lebomb]

well this is only because law of averages makes the Big guy more valuable. not because it results in championships


...........like someone said before a GREAT big guy is much harder to draft than a great guard. If a Tim D. or D. Robinson, or Shaq was in this years draft. There is no way in hell a Derrick Rose or Chris Paul would have gone #1.

[Tully365]

In the modern era, the best classic big men-- Shaq, Duncan, KG-- have 9 titles between them. The best Big defender, Bill Russell, had 11 by himself. The best classic point guards of the past 15 years or so-- Nash, Stockton, Kidd-- have none. Having a dominant defender in the paint seems to me to be the single best indicator of team greatness.... Russell's Celts, Willis Reed, Walton, Kareem, Olajuwon, DRob and Duncan... the 90s Bulls are a rare exception, but they had possibly the two best non-Big defenders in the league. I'd go with Howard, who after skipping college is dominant while still learning the game.

[DPG21920]

Lets see how Howard does with out a good pg now. I know how CP3 does w/o Chandler/West

[IronMexican]

Howard isn't a great C. CP3 is a great PG, though. Howard needs some back to the basket skills before I can say he is great. Right now, he is a very good Center lacking a post game, other than throwing up some fugly hooks.

[FreeMason]

If it's between just Howard or Paul, I would definitely take Paul if he had a coach like Pop who would not tolerate that nonstop bitch whining.

Howard is no Tim Duncan, Shaq, Kareem, Dream, etc.

[DPG21920]

Who are the best big men of all time? Who are the best guards of all time? Who would you chose 1st if you are starting a team? Compare the different scenarios.

[IronMexican]

I would choose Kareem #1, and 2, 3, 4 are all very debatable between Shaq, Dream, and Duncan. Guards? MJ #1, Magic #2, and the rest is tough.

[DPG21920]

So would you draft any of those bigs before Jordan or Magic?

[IronMexican]

I'd take Kareem before anyone.

[DPG21920]

Wow. I would not take anyone over MJ.

[manufor3]

da big man

[IronMexican]

Well, DPG, the poll results speak for themselves.

[DPG21920]

Well, DPG, the poll results speak for themselves.

LOL, please tell me you are joking. Lets take a poll that ask which is the team of the decade: Spurs or Lakers and let those results speak for themselves.

[IronMexican]

On a Spurs board? C'mon, brah. I guarantee even that would be a closer poll than this one.

[DPG21920]

On a Spurs board? C'mon, brah. I guarantee even that would be a closer poll than this one.

Exactly, these results aren't actually telling. Same way you would discredit the other poll results I suggested. How can the same people be completely right on this one and wrong on another?

[angelbelow]

being a spurs fan can you justify voting for a pg.

[jdev82]

howard chokes. he dissapears 4th quarter.

[DPG21920]

Another argument I would make is that what point guards do is statistically harder than what big men do. Example, look at the categories from a typical box score. You have:

FG%, FT%, 3PTM, PTS, REB, AST, STL, BLK and TO.

Then lets split them into typical big men vs. guards categories while canceling out the ones that apply to both.

FG% and FT% cancel out because usually bigs have better FG% and guards have better FT% (even though for the most part guards have a more respectable FG% than most bigs have FT%). Points are applicable to both types of players, so they are out.

So that leaves us with 3PTM, REB, AST, STL, BLK, and TO. These (excluding TO) are the most statistically difficult stats to obtain (meaning more people in the league score 10 pts than average 1 block...).

Of these, guards typically dominate 3PTM, AST and STL's while bigs dominate REB and BLK's. Naturally, guards have more turn overs because they handle the ball, but often many big men turn the ball over at a higher rate (ast/to ratio).

Also, you have to look at which categories are more easily attainable by crossing over. For example, a guard is much more likely to grab a rebound than a big is to hit a 3 pointer. Clearly, guards dominate the most statistically difficult categories in the game, which in turn you could hypothesize that they are more rare (even though people often argue that bigs are much more rare).

Just another thing to factor.

[Unholy Turkey]

if you look at how they entered the league... paul foh shur. yao would be a better candidate coz howard didn't look all that great when he started.

but if you compare them now, i'd pick howard. he makes nelson look like an all-star.

Yao is Chinese. :lol

And I think the bigs are more consistent than guards, so I'll go with the guards.

Weren't most NBA dynasties started with good Centers in the middle anyway?

[Jmoney]

Barkley, Malone...Convenient that you leave them out.

If you notice my list ONLY included Centers.

Neither Barkley nor Malone was a center.

As for the debate on MJ. Like I said prior MJ was the only one to cement his teams status as dynasty without having a true good center although one could even argue you that since they did not win till Will Perdue showed up and they were able to slide Horace Grant over to PF and split minutes between aging Bill Cartwright and Perdue.

[m33p0]

Howard isn't a great C. CP3 is a great PG, though. Howard needs some back to the basket skills before I can say he is great. Right now, he is a very good Center lacking a post game, other than throwing up some fugly hooks.
i agree. he isn't a great center. he is still raw and still lacks a lot of things on the offensive end. and despite of that, he is pretty much a guaranteed 25-15 with a couple of blocks a night. and he gives you something no guard could ever give - intimidating interior defense. as great as chris fall, erhm... paul is, i'd still pick howard.

[m33p0]

Yao is Chinese. :lol

And I think the bigs are more consistent than guards, so I'll go with the guards.

Weren't most NBA dynasties started with good Centers in the middle anyway?
really? all the while i thought he was italian. :wow

[DPG21920]

If you notice my list ONLY included Centers.

Neither Barkley nor Malone was a center.

As for the debate on MJ. Like I said prior MJ was the only one to cement his teams status as dynasty without having a true good center although one could even argue you that since they did not win till Will Perdue showed up and they were able to slide Horace Grant over to PF and split minutes between aging Bill Cartwright and Perdue.

They are bigs just like Duncan who people have included in the argument. Do not get caught up in the "position". Get caught up in how they played and their size.

[Unholy Turkey]

really? all the while i thought he was italian. :wow

Because of how he emphasizes his face when he gets contact or a foul right? :toast

What I mean by him being Chinese is that he brings so many All Star votes to other players in his team.

[m33p0]

Another argument I would make is that what point guards do is statistically harder than what big men do. Example, look at the categories from a typical box score. You have:

FG%, FT%, 3PTM, PTS, REB, AST, STL, BLK and TO.

Then lets split them into typical big men vs. guards categories while canceling out the ones that apply to both.

FG% and FT% cancel out because usually bigs have better FG% and guards have better FT% (even though for the most part guards have a more respectable FG% than most bigs have FT%). Points are applicable to both types of players, so they are out.

So that leaves us with 3PTM, REB, AST, STL, BLK, and TO. These (excluding TO) are the most statistically difficult stats to obtain (meaning more people in the league score 10 pts than average 1 block...).

Of these, guards typically dominate 3PTM, AST and STL's while bigs dominate REB and BLK's. Naturally, guards have more turn overs because they handle the ball, but often many big men turn the ball over at a higher rate (ast/to ratio).

Also, you have to look at which categories are more easily attainable by crossing over. For example, a guard is much more likely to grab a rebound than a big is to hit a 3 pointer. Clearly, guards dominate the most statistically difficult categories in the game, which in turn you could hypothesize that they are more rare (even though people often argue that bigs are much more rare).

Just another thing to factor.
i totally disagree.

top 3 guards in today's nba: paul, parker, williams. they are all comparable to any top guards in the history of the league. and then there are others who can make a case too like nash.

top 3 centers in today's nba: yao, howard, bynum. they're not great if you compare them to the all time great centers. hakeem, kareem, shaq, wilt. even ewing could make a case for being better than those 3. and can you imagine oden trying to keep up with robinson? he'd get eaten alive.

[m33p0]

Who are the best big men of all time? Who are the best guards of all time? Who would you chose 1st if you are starting a team? Compare the different scenarios.
i will take wilt before anyone else. followed by shaq then hakeem. magic comes fourth.

[DPG21920]

i totally disagree.

top 3 guards in today's nba: paul, parker, williams. they are all comparable to any top guards in the history of the league. and then there are others who can make a case too like nash.

top 3 centers in today's nba: yao, howard, bynum. they're not great if you compare them to the all time great centers. hakeem, kareem, shaq, wilt. even ewing could make a case for being better than those 3. and can you imagine oden trying to keep up with robinson? he'd get eaten alive.

Please read the post. If you are looking at statistical odds, the guard categories are STATISTICALLY MORE RARE.

[DPG21920]

i will take wilt before anyone else. followed by shaq then hakeem. magic comes fourth.

So you would take the best player in the game 5th? Nice to know.

[m33p0]

So you would take the best player in the game 5th? Nice to know.
you're looking at the rings, dawg. you're looking at how their careers ended. you should look at how their careers are projected. you'll find out how differently the view looks from that perspective. remember that you're building a whole new team.

[DPG21920]

you're looking at the rings, dawg. you're looking at how their careers ended. you should look at how their careers are projected. you'll find out how differently the view looks from that perspective. remember that you're building a whole new team.

No I am not looking at rings. Jordan does not have the most rings. I am looking at who is widely considered the best player ever.

[m33p0]

No I am not looking at rings. Jordan does not have the most rings. I am looking at who is widely considered the best player ever.
so you're saying houston made a blunder when they drafted hakeem instead of jordan even though they had no idea that jordan will be widely regarded as the greatest of all time some years later?

[DPG21920]

Yes.

[m33p0]

Yes.
then consider this: bulls with pippen + grant with hakeem in the middle for their first title as against rockets with jordan + rookie cassell + rookie horry. which one has the more realistic chance of winning a championship?

here's another one: since the rockets will be picking jordan, portland will get the center they have always wanted in hakeem. how do you think portland will be remembered? hakeem with drexler early in their careers.

think about it.

[DPG21920]

You are making wayy to many assumptions. Fact remains that Jordan is widely considered the best player ever.

[m33p0]

You are making wayy to many assumptions. Fact remains that Jordan is widely considered the best player ever.
yes he is. i don't doubt that. i'm a card carrying member of the "Jordan is GOAT" club. but being the best doesn't automatically translate into having a great team. you have to build a team that is able to play both offense and defense. and the best way to start is by putting in the center piece and build from there.

consider that portland team with hakeem at center and drexler at 2 guard. even without hakeem, they went to finals a couple of times. with a hakeem, they would have clobbered the bulls even if they had jordan. how do i know this? sabonis was killing them and he ain't no hakeem.

[DPG21920]

That would be like me saying imagine Jordan with Malone.

[m33p0]

that would be impossible since utah didn't have a top 3 pick that year.

[DPG21920]

So what, you are theoretically putting Hakeem with Clyde.

[m33p0]

so you're saying houston made a blunder when they drafted hakeem instead of jordan even though they had no idea that jordan will be widely regarded as the greatest of all time some years later?


Yes.


So what, you are theoretically putting Hakeem with Clyde.

[DPG21920]

And by the way, how can you make such huge assumptions with guards and not bigs. You say matter-of-factly that the guards today are comparable to the best guards of all time, when CP3 and Deron Williams have not even been in the league that long? They are not considered any where near the top guards of all time.

[DPG21920]

What does that have to do with anything? You are saying that IF they would have taken Jordan and IF the Blazers took Hakeem that the WOULD beat the whomever. That did not happen and there is no way to logically say that your scenario is any more real than Santa.

Try and stick to the facts. IF Houston had to do it over, knowing what they know now, would they still have drafted Hakeem? I think not.

[m33p0]

What does that have to do with anything? You are saying that IF they would have taken Jordan and IF the Blazers took Hakeem that the WOULD beat the whomever. That did not happen and there is no way to logically say that your scenario is any more real than Santa.

Try and stick to the facts. IF Houston had to do it over, knowing what they know now, would they still have drafted Hakeem? I think not.
lol. i think they would. but you may be right. the rockets did have 7'4" ralph sampson. and hakeem might have ended up in portland with drexler.

[DPG21920]

It is just hard to argue, knowing what we all know now, that any team would take somebody over Jordan.

[DPG21920]

By the way, let me clarify that I do not think you are wrong and I understand the big man argument. To me, if you are drafting truly great players, it is a win-win. I just have my reasons for thinking truly elite guards impact the game more than truly elite bigs. Each champion needs other good guys to win either way.

[Fernando TD21]

8 out of 10 times I'd take the bigs, the other 2 times I'd take MJ or Magic.


Shaq and Duncan have 8 of the past 10 championships, that's how I know.
:toast

[DrHouse]

I would rather build my franchise around Tim Duncan or Shaquille O'Neal in their primes than Michael Jordan.

It's much easier to build a winning team when you have a dominant center who can impact the game on both ends of the floor.

Jordan needed a very good and very rare supporting cast around him until he started winning championships.

[Killakobe81]

No way. Great point guards are more useful than Bigs. Bigs do not handle the ball 90% of the game, the guards do. Without good pg's, the bigs are rendered useless for the most part.

The play makers like CP3 always have the ball in their hands and set the tempo. That is not to say that bigs suck, but when it comes to guards vs bigs, great guards > great bigs.

Silly so you take CP3 over duncan in his younger prime? hell no duncan best Wake forest product ..id still take TD over chris paul even over a healthy bynum ...playing like he did last week but if bynum comes back healthy beasting in playoffs i take this back

[DPG21920]

Silly so you take CP3 over duncan in his younger prime? hell no duncan best Wake forest product ..id still take TD over chris paul even over a healthy bynum ...playing like he did last week but if bynum comes back healthy beasting in playoffs i take this back

Not a fair argument. Duncan has been in the league and I have had the luxury of seeing what he can do over a large sample size. The same cannot be said about CP3. Tim will without a doubt be a hall of famer, you cannot say that about Paul.

[m33p0]

It is just hard to argue, knowing what we all know now, that any team would take somebody over Jordan.
knowing what i know, i would still take a great center over jordan. and magic before jordan, too.

[Ghazi]

Celtics won without a big man.

[z0sa]

Celtics won without a big man.

Every Celtics title-winner had a dominant big man.

[Ghazi]

Garnett's only big in stature, he's not remotely similar to Duncan/Hakeem/Shaq

And then there's Perkins, lulz

[mystargtr34]

I agree with Ghazi. Garnett obviously isnt your typical back to the basket, collapse the D type of big guy. Ie Hakeem, Duncan or Shaq.

Plus, Garnett wasnt even remotely as dominant statistically like those guys throughout the playoffs.

The 08 Celtics and the 04 Pistons belong in the same group of 'Champions'. While Duncan's and Shaq's teams belong in a group together.

[m33p0]

Garnett's only big in stature, he's not remotely similar to Duncan/Hakeem/Shaq

And then there's Perkins, lulz
he has the dominating defensive presence of any great center with his shot blocking.

[Ghazi]

I guess Josh Smith is the next great big man then.

[DrHouse]

The '08 Celtics had 3 superstar HOF players. They are nothing like the '04 Piston team IMHO.

Pierce = Kobe-lite
Allen = Best pure shooter in the game
Garnett = Defensive nightmare

[Ghazi]

Bonner > KG

http://youtube.com/watch?v=puXDg637X10

[m33p0]

I guess Josh Smith is the next great big man then.
isn't it telling how shallow the talent pool is when it comes to centers?

[Chieflion]

Whatever, big men more important. Wasn't it easy to even pinpoint the starting and reserve centers for the ASG this season? How many point guards actually got snubbed or close to making all star game. This shit isn't even an argument.

[DPG21920]

Relevant article about this discussion:




I'm from the Philadelphia area. And I'm tired of the debate I'm having with Sonny Hill, a local sportscaster, about the relative merits of certain players. For example, Mr. Hill says that Michael Jordan couldn't match Wilt Chamberlain's dominance of the league. He also claims that Oscar Robertson was better than MJ. What's your take? — John Randall, Camden, NJ

Before evaluating a player's "dominance", the term has to be defined. Is it about numbers? Or championships?

If the former is the measure, than Wilt was more dominant than any other player in NBA history. But, if the latter definition is employed, since Wilt won only two championships (Philadelphia 1967, LA Lakers 1972), and was on the losing side in three other finals (1969, 1970, and 1973 with the LAL), his dominance was somewhat limited.

Jordan, on the other hand, won six NBA titles and triumphed in every championship series in which he played. To me, rings are much more indicative of dominance than mere numbers. So my vote goes to MJ over Wilt.

On the other hand, comparing Jordan and the Big O is a much more complicated issue. Robertson was appreciably stronger, a much better rebounder and passer, and a more effective post-up scorer. Also, O was more of a perfectionist when it came to executing offensive plays than MJ ever was.

Jordan was somewhat quicker, and had better shooting range — but only because the 3-point line was in effect during his career. MJ was also a slightly better defender. In truth, Jordan's biggest advantage is that he could fly higher than Robertson.

However, since Robertson was a point guard and Jordan was a wing, no meaningful comparisons are possible

http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/9175578/Answering-your-NBA-questions:-LeBron%27s-flaws?

[DAF86]

The big man, always the big man.

[jdiggy0424]

dwight howard

look how bad the hornets are with cp3 gone blowing a lead against the blazers. You put the focus on a point guard and he goes down with injury then the team would suffer a lot worse.

plus most nba championship teams were built along a dominant center except for michael.

sorry but d howard is the most logical option

[jdiggy0424]

Celtics won without a big man.

celtics had parish mchale and walton (great when healthy)

[Tully365]

The original debate here was Center vs. Point Guard, so it doesn't seem right that the topic of MJ keeps coming up. I would argue that a very good and versatile SG is more important than a good PG, so using MJ as an example doesn't really work for the original discussion. Also, I think using MJ as a "typical" example of a guard doesn't work at all-- it's not like many typical guards are similar or close to Jordan-- he was far and away the best. With guys like Duncan, Shaq, Hakeem, Kareem, Chamberlain, etc., there's lots of honest debate about who's better. I don't think that's generally the case with Jordan and other SGs.

Also, I think it's important to remember that the year after Jordan first retired, his Bulls won 55 games, so that was a pretty damn good team even without Jordan.

[phyzik]

Take the big man, Dwight. Look how many good... even just decent.... point guards there are in the NBA today....

Look how many good Big men there are in the NBA today....

You take the rare commodity if its offered to you. Serviceable point guards are a dime a dozen and a good big man at center will make a serviceable point guard look great.