I would rather have the boards, honestly.
They have the exact same standing reach. That means their hands are exactly the same height from the floor at full extension. It's exactly as easy to shoot over one as the other. Suggesting otherwise is what's just plain stupid. How do you fail to understand that 8' 10.5" is the same if it's Carlos Boozer, Joakim Noah or Dejuan Blair?
I don't know that what you're saying is true, but regardless, doesn't everyone do worse against extremely tall front lines? I know Duncan does, and nobody's using that fact to make a case that he's undersized.
Blair's defensive problems last season weren't related to his height. What makes Noah a better defender than he is at this point is mostly due to his experience. There's no reason related to size that would keep Blair from being every bit as good a defender as Noah.
Well I hope your hypothesis is correct and Blair proves it by being in position a lot more this season. And works on not letting his man get to his preferred spot. He has a lower center of gravity than almost every big in the NBA, so if he combines that with his added strength, he should be at the very least a decent all-around defender.
And Blair is way less effective against taller front lines, Duncan doesn't decline as much.
If it's a 1:1 ratio and the balls aren't ed out of bounds, I'd go with the blocks. Intimidation can be a very strong thing.
Ok, last post on this subject...I believe exactly what Tjastal posted earlier in that it is much more difficult to shoot over someone who is 6'9 or 6'10 with a standing reach of 8' 10.5" rather than someone who is 6'6 with the same standing reach. Do you really believe Blair runs around the floor with his arms straight up the whole game (, sorry just pictured this), of course not. A player who is taller does not need to fully extend his reach to influence the offensive player. I like Blair alot as a spurs player, but I fully accept the fact he is an undersized PF as well. I think you need to do the same and move on. Watch any televised spurs game (which I am sure you do) and I will assure you all knowledgable NBA analysts and former NBA players would agree with me.
Blair was a poor defender last year, he was at Bonner's level. I hope he will be better this year. Being undersized is a surmountable drawback on the defensive end (see Ben Wallace).
And FYI, Noah' reach is reportedly higher than the one measured in pre-draft camp where he had a shoulder injury.
I agree with your assessment and in my opinion I thought Blair got slightly better by the end of last season. Positioning is key to undersized bigs like Blair. If he is unable to keep bigger players away from the basket when recieving the pass down low he will get scored on all game long. Wallace was great at this when playing duncan, he was always pushing duncan outside the paint when he recieved the pass down low.
Well, it's not, and they are AND rebounds = possessions. So, there you go.
as far as defense Blair need to look at Chuck Hayes who is great defender with about the same attributes!
Everyone always talks about deficiencies with virtually everything regarding this team, but consider this...
There won't be a better rebounding tandem in the league. Not Gasol-Bynum, not Randolph-Gasol; no one.
They'll also pile up points in the paint. Blair may not have a post game as aesthetically pleasing as Duncan, but he finds ways to score in the paint and does so efficiently.
They're both good passers and because of this and their ability to play inside and (if Blair proves he can hit a 12 foot jumper consistently) out, can be interchangeable. Particularly on offense during the regular season, expect to see Duncan playing more PF than he has in a long time and quite possibly, ever.
They're also good screen setters, have excellent hands and are good finishers on pick-and-rolls.
Are they going to have problems guarding elite face-up fours? Sure. Just as a lot of teams do. But more often than not, they're going to win the battle of the starting bigs.
Bosh and Garnett are potentially problematic match-ups, but as far as the playoffs go, the Spurs wouldn't play either unless they got to the Finals.
Nowitzki and Gasol are definitely problematic match-ups and should the Spurs see either in the playoffs, I fully expect to see McDyess starting, unless Blair proves that he can do something resembling an adequate job defending them in the regular season. Gasol in particular is tough for him, because not only is he a tough cover for him, but offensively Gasol's length gives him problems finishing around the rim.
it will be quite obvious early in the season whether this will work or not.
It's exactly as hard to shoot over one as the other, because their height is exactly the same where it matters. People don't block shots with their shoulders or their heads. They block shots with their hands, and only do so when the hands are extended in the air. You might go attempt to look up how many blocks in the history of the NBA were performed with any other body part. Perhaps Blair could grow a Fletch afro so he could suddenly become the dominating defender you dream he could be.Ok, last post on this subject...I believe exactly what Tjastal posted earlier in that it is much more difficult to shoot over someone who is 6'9 or 6'10 with a standing reach of 8' 10.5" rather than someone who is 6'6 with the same standing reach. Do you really believe Blair runs around the floor with his arms straight up the whole game (
I fully accept the fact that Blair is in no way undersized for his position. I suggest you do the same and move on. Otherwise you might start seeking out all these knowledgable NBA analysts and former NBA players who think that 6'10.5" doesn't equal 6'10.5". Or we could just agree to disagree.
While I agree that standing reach is a BETTER determinant of "height" in basketball than the height of a player's head, I disagree with the notion that shooting over a smaller person with long arms is equally difficult as shooting over a larger person with the same reach.
Sure, you don't block shots with other body parts. But you do inhibit line of sight. To the basket, to other players, etc. It's a simple issue of the mass of a torso or shoulders blocking line of sight more extensively than a pair of arms.
Is it a significant difference? Maybe, maybe not. I'd rather have a 6'9 guy with long arms than a 6'11 guy with T-Rex arms. But two guys with the same standing reach, and all other factors the same? I take the taller one.
This.
Blair's also very quick for his bulk. His "size" doesn't worry me one bit.
Fair enough. I even did some looking around just to see if Yav has a point, and someone mentioned that it might take a shorter guy with longer arms a bit longer to get his hands up, and line of sight, as you mentioned, can be a factor. I agree that you always take the taller one if all other things are equal, but I still stand by my statement that Blair is in no meaningful way "undersized" for his position.
I also think that you shouldn't underestimate the point about line of sight. And on the offensive end, Blair is definitely undersized. That's why he's going for those "low" layups so often (it's the same with Glen Davis). I know this thread is more about his defense, though.
Thats not entirely true. Wallace was a good defender earlier in his career. Think about how good a defender Dennis Rodman was in his career. Both were listed at 6'8".
I mentioned line of sight explicitly in the post you quoted. Mentioning that it can be a factor is about as much as you can say about it; any more would be overestimating it. If a two inch difference in line of sight is the only justification for calling a guy "undersized" then the argument is even weaker than I've made it out to be. This is, after all, a game where the guys with the best court vision are the smallest players on the floor.
Blair also dunks more than any of the other bigs on the team. Taking what's available doesn't mean anything other than you're a good decision maker.
I misread this the first time too, but Bruno said it's surmountable, not insurmountable, meaning that even if Blair were undersized (which he isn't), he could still be as good a defender as his skills and work-ethic can make him. At least that's the way I understood it.
Sorry to resurrect an abandoned thread, but Blair is now listed on Spurs.com as 6'8". At his age, it's not inconceivable that he actually grew an inch, but probably just following the Danny Fortson model (i.e. playing C therefore he has to be listed as at least 6'8"). Anybody with some actual facts on the subject?
No way Blair is 6'8". Recent photos someone posted showed him being barely 3 inches taller than Parker.
Blair is 6'6" . . . tops . . . in shoes.
His official predraft was 6'6.5" in shoes, 6'5.25" without. I was aware that he is shorter than his listed height, just noted that it changed from last year and wondered if anyone knew if he had grown.
Probably for the same reason many NBA players have a listed height that's more than their actual height. People are less likely to whine about him being undersized if he's listed at 6'8" since they seem to be completely oblivious to things like standing reach even when having it explained to them. (gee, passive aggressive much, OV?)
For what Blair may be lacking in height (and any disadvantages that causes), he has a pretty big advantage in a different way few other big men can match, which is an enormous girth. He's a huge space eater in the paint which clearly helps him when battling for rebounds.
Charles Barkley was about the same size as Blair and could guard power forwards or centers and was great rebounder for the same reasons as Blair is.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
