NBA Current Top 50: Andrew Bynum (No. 24)

[Allanon]

If you are a great athlete, you can overcome injuries and compete at a high level. It just puts you at risk for other injuries. The fact that Bynum was thought to be out 8 weeks and then never returned is not a great sign. Given, they got Pau and they could afford to rest him, why did it take so much longer to get him back?

Nah, kids who suffer major injuries (like a torn ACL) at 13 don't make it to the NBA. They wouldn't be a star in high school with a messed up leg. Not being a star in high school, they wouldn't be recruited into college, and from college recruited into the NBA. It's a cause and effect thing.

But when Kobe is done you think Bynum can carry a team to a le? So Parker no, but Bynum yes? It would all depend on who you put around him.

Yes, I think Bynum has the skills to carry a franchise but it's too early to say. It does help alot over Parker that he's a center. I would never build a franchise around Parker right now. 2 years ago yes, I would have considered it. I think it would be crazy for the Spurs to build around Tony when Duncan's done.

You do realize that with all that you are implying about next years Lakers, that you are essentially putting them in the conversation of "greatest team" ever. Is that what you are saying?

Yes, perhaps one of the best regular season teams ever...the playoffs are always volatile. If they do get 70+ and win the championship, yes, they would be one of the greatest single season teams. If they only win 66-69 then no.

[DPG21920]

So no athlete has had an injury (bad one) as a kid to become a pro?

So why build around CP3 or D-Will or Nash? They are not bigs. It does not matter if Bynum is a big or not, good players are good players. A good point guard is just as valuable as a good big now. That is why you see teams building around point guards now. And do not give me that propaganda that there are more "great point guards" than "great bigs". It is just not true. If you want to rank the franchise point guards versus the franchise bigs, there are more bigs. So why are teams drafting and building around point guards now?

That is not to say bigs are not valuable, but it is not like it used to be. It takes two to tango. More and more there is a shift to the NBA being a guard dominated league.

[DPG21920]

My professors tell me that anyone that frames their arguments as absolutes are never right and that is the only thing that is 100%.

[Allanon]

So no athlete has had an injury (bad one) as a kid to become a pro?

I can't think of any in the NBA, can you? The NBA is much less forgiving than other pro sports because there are only 450 player slots total.

So why build around CP3 or D-Will or Nash?

Because there are no franchise Centers to build around. Like if you had a chance to build a franchise on these guys in their prime.... CP3, DWill, John Stockton, prime time Jason Kidd, Duncan, or < insert great point guard here> who would you choose?

A good point guard is just as valuable as a good big now. That is why you see teams building around point guards now. And do not give me that propaganda that there are more "great point guards" than "great bigs". It is just not true. If you want to rank the franchise point guards versus the franchise bigs, there are more bigs. So why are teams drafting and building around point guards now?

Again, because there aren't enough quality big men to build around so you go with the point guard.

More and more there is a shift to the NBA being a guard dominated league.

Because there are no franchise quality bigs to build around. A skilled Center is so damn rare these days.

Look at all the franchise level bigs out there, they all have the team built around them. Teams that are dominated by point guards don't have a great big man. Teams that have both great guard and great big man are dominated by the big man (ie Duncan, Dirk)

[DPG21920]

What are you talking about? Name the point guards that you think are franchise level and the most skilled. Then name the bigs.

You keep undervaluing the truly great point guards because you think that bigs are so much better, then you overvalue the bigs. There are plenty of bigs in this league that are very good. If you are talking about the absolute elite, then there are a few. Same with guards. People aren't just taking the Rafer Alston's of the league and building around them.

[DPG21920]

I can't think of any in the NBA, can you? The NBA is much less forgiving than other pro sports because there are only 450 player slots total.

Not off the top of my head, but I am sure that there is someone.

Because there are no franchise Centers to build around. Like if you had a chance to build a franchise on these guys in their prime.... CP3, DWill, John Stockton, prime time Jason Kidd, Duncan, or < insert great point guard here> who would you choose?

Duncan just so happens to be the best player on that list. There are plenty of guards to build around.

Because there are no franchise quality bigs to build around. A skilled Center is so damn rare these days.

Truly skilled point guards are rare, there are a lot of good ones, but not franchise. Just like bigs.

Look at all the franchise level bigs out there, they all have the team built around them. Teams that are dominated by point guards don't have a great big man. Teams that have both great guard and great big man are dominated by the big man (ie Duncan, Dirk)

So you are saying Bynum will dominate and not Kobe?

[Allanon]

What are you talking about? Name the point guards that you think are franchise level and the most skilled. Then name the bigs.

Franchise point guards I think are only CP3, Deron Williams. There aren't any other point guards good enough to build a franchise around. Centers you have two so far Yao & DHo. Power Forwards there are quite a few Duncan, Jefferson, Brand, etc.

You keep undervaluing the truly great point guards because you think that bigs are so much better, then you overvalue the bigs. There are plenty of bigs in this league that are very good. If you are talking about the absolute elite, then there are a few. Same with guards. People aren't just taking the Rafer Alston's of the league and building around them.

I don't undervalue point guards, I just don't think they can affect a franchise like a big man can. Having a great point guard is over-rated, it's much more important to have a great big man. Look at all the past NBA champions, how many were won by teams with franchise point guards?

For example,

Oden (yes, it's no longer Brandon Roy's team) will take his team to new heights in his first year, Derrick Rose will not.

If you had a chance to draft Oden or Derrick Rose, who would you have chosen?

[DPG21920]

This debate just has so many layers and has veered off. You are en led to your opinion, but I just think everything with Bynum is premature. I also think there are just as many good bigs as there are guards (pg's).

Yao, Howard, Jefferson, Kaman, Chandler, Biedrins, Bynum, Camby

CP3, D-Will, Parker, Nash, Kidd, Baron, Billups, Miller, Calderon

That is just true pgs's vs true centers. If you want to go to Power Fowards vs Shooting Guards as well, it would not really matter. You can see the list is really not that skewed. There is a pretty even amount of starters at both positions at equal skill levels.

[DPG21920]

You are limiting the argument to only point guards, but including Power Forwards and Centers. If you want to include other guards (Jordan, Wade, Kobe...) then the list becomes more even. You cannot have one without the other and a great point guard will do just as much as a great big. The most dominant players of all time are probably bigs, but guards are dominating now because they are the best players in the game, not because lack of bigs. I would of chosen Oden, because he is going to be a defensive beast if healthy and that is what I value.

[Reggie Miller]

This debate just has so many layers and has veered off. You are en led to your opinion, but I just think everything with Bynum is premature. I also think there are just as many good bigs as there are guards (pg's).

Yao, Howard, Jefferson, Kaman, Chandler, Biedrins, Bynum, Camby

CP3, D-Will, Parker, Nash, Kidd, Baron, Billups, Miller, Calderon

That is just true pgs's vs true centers. If you want to go to Power Fowards vs Shooting Guards as well, it would not really matter. You can see the list is really not that skewed. There is a pretty even amount of starters at both positions at equal skill levels.

You are your own worst enemy.

How many of the centers that you have listed have both a complete offensive and defensive skill set for the position? By my count, maybe one (Yao Ming). These are not "good" bigs; they just happen to be a little bit better than the absolute dreck other teams are trotting out there at the moment.

How many centers of the late 1980s through the 1990s had both skill sets? A LOT. Hakeem Olajuwon, David Robinson, Patrick Ewing, young Alonzo Mourning, Shaq*, etc., etc. Think about it: You could make a strong argument that Rik Smits would be an elite center in today's league. Rik ing Smits!

When Dikembe Mutumbo first came into the NBA, he had no offensive ability whatsoever. There is such a dearth of talent at the center position that his elderly ass still has a job seventeen years later. I realize that he is supposed to be one of the great defensive centers of all time. Still, Mutumbo has been able to get away without learning a single low-post offensive move for seventeen years, precisely because he can't be easily replaced due to his height.

How many guards do think would have stuck in the NBA if they hadn't worked on their offensive skills after draft day?

* Shaq has never really been a defensive stalwart, but he blocked a lot more shots in his younger days. Even if he isn't a great defender, he is so damn big that he changes shots anyway.

[DPG21920]

You are your own worst enemy.

How many of the centers that you have listed have both a complete offensive and defensive skill set for the position? By my count, maybe one (Yao Ming). These are not "good" bigs; they just happen to be a little bit better than the absolute dreck other teams are trotting out there at the moment.

How many centers of the late 1980s through the 1990s had both skill sets? A LOT. Hakeem Olajuwon, David Robinson, Patrick Ewing, young Alonzo Mourning, Shaq*, etc., etc. Think about it: You could make a strong argument that Rik Smits would be an elite center in today's league. Rik ing Smits!

When Dikembe Mutumbo first came into the NBA, he had no offensive ability whatsoever. There is such a dearth of talent at the center position that his elderly ass still has a job seventeen years later. I realize that he is supposed to be one of the great defensive centers of all time. Still, Mutumbo has been able to get away without learning a single low-post offensive move for seventeen years, precisely because he can't be easily replaced due to his height.

How many guards do think would have stuck in the NBA if they hadn't worked on their offensive skills after draft day?

* Shaq has never really been a defensive stalwart, but he blocked a lot more shots in his younger days. Even if he isn't a great defender, he is so damn big that he changes shots anyway.

There are plenty of guards who are defensively challenged on that list, they get backed down and cannot stop anyone, but they can out score/pass them. How am I my worst enemy when you are naming some of the greatest players of all time and comparing them to people today (Robinson, the Dream, Shaq, Ewing). Of course when you look at that you will say, wowwww, but if I start talking about Jordan, Kobe, Magic, Cousy, Pistol Pete the argument evens out. The fact remains that there are just as many skilled bigs as there are point guards right now and Bynum would not be traded for any of the major ones, especially not Tony Parker.

[ambchang]

Amazing how quickly people forget the reason and results of Juwan Howard signing his $100 million contract.

[DPG21920]

Or Arenas signing his.

[Reggie Miller]

There are plenty of guards who are defensively challenged on that list, they get backed down and cannot stop anyone, but they can out score/pass them. How am I my worst enemy when you are naming some of the greatest players of all time and comparing them to people today (Robinson, the Dream, Shaq, Ewing). Of course when you look at that you will say, wowwww, but if I start talking about Jordan, Kobe, Magic, Cousy, Pistol Pete the argument evens out. The fact remains that there are just as many skilled bigs as there are point guards right now and Bynum would not be traded for any of the major ones, especially not Tony Parker.

Way to distort my entire argument.

Are you seriously saying that Rik ing Smits was one of the greatest centers of all time? I'm sure he would be gratified.

In the 1950s-1970s, there was also no shortage of decent players at center. That is, most centers had both an offensive and defensive skill set. In those days, if you had a 6'11" guy who sucked and a 6'8" guy who could ball, your center was the shorter guy.

Undoubtedly, there was a LOT of talent and height at the center position in the late 1980s through the 1990s. This may have led to the dilemma of today. For whatever reason, teams began to think that a center had to be at least 6'10" to even play the position. You began to see a lot of international players and BWSs ("Big White Stiffs") at the position merely because they were tall enough. (For every Sabonis there were multiple one-dimensional players like Bol and Mutumbo.)

You don't seem to be grasping the fact there are literally millions more men in the world capable of playing a guard position in the NBA, as opposed to the tiny percentage of the population tall enough to play either PF or C.

Someone who only plays one end of the floor (if that) is NOT a "skilled big." There are less than a handful of skilled bigs in the NBA today, and most of them are actually power forwards.

[Many PackYao]

Dang, looking at his pic here..I can see a resemblence to Isiah Thomas and the Jackson family!

[manufor3]

TMAC gets low scores because of all the injuries. If he was a healthy Superstar, he'd rank in the top 10.

and bynum get 24 but get injured? your logic makes no sense

[Allanon]

and bynum get 24 but get injured? your logic makes no sense

Bynum has had 1 injury in his 3 years.

TMac has never played 80+games in 1 season during his entire 11 year career.

[DPG21920]

Way to distort my entire argument.

Are you seriously saying that Rik ing Smits was one of the greatest centers of all time? I'm sure he would be gratified.

In the 1950s-1970s, there was also no shortage of decent players at center. That is, most centers had both an offensive and defensive skill set. In those days, if you had a 6'11" guy who sucked and a 6'8" guy who could ball, your center was the shorter guy.

Undoubtedly, there was a LOT of talent and height at the center position in the late 1980s through the 1990s. This may have led to the dilemma of today. For whatever reason, teams began to think that a center had to be at least 6'10" to even play the position. You began to see a lot of international players and BWSs ("Big White Stiffs") at the position merely because they were tall enough. (For every Sabonis there were multiple one-dimensional players like Bol and Mutumbo.)

You don't seem to be grasping the fact there are literally millions more men in the world capable of playing a guard position in the NBA, as opposed to the tiny percentage of the population tall enough to play either PF or C.

Someone who only plays one end of the floor (if that) is NOT a "skilled big." There are less than a handful of skilled bigs in the NBA today, and most of them are actually power forwards.

Fail. With how many spots there are available in the league, there is more than enough big men to fill every single spot. There is a lot of one dimensional small players as well.

[Reggie Miller]

Fail. With how many spots there are available in the league, there is more than enough big men to fill every single spot. There is a lot of one dimensional small players as well.

I don't think we are even speaking the same language. Obviously, no NBA team is sending up a white flag to forfeit because they have no one to play center on any given night. I'm talking about the quality of the position.

I have no idea how old you are. I'm not going to be a about it and assume blah, blah, blah. My point: traditional basketball wisdom has been that you build around a true center with both skill sets. The ABA era changed this approach because the ABA couldn't lure the skilled bigs into their league. (As always, skilled bigs were too busy going in the first round of the NBA draft.) After the merger, the NBA initially had a shortage of skilled bigs, which led to an opening up of the game, ABA style.

For reasons I don't fully understand myself, NBA teams began to evaluate centers primarily on height and take flyers on big guys who couldn't play. I suspect that the shortage in the talent pool pressured this trend. This is very different from traditional pro basketball (pre-merger), when it was expected that the center was the best or second-best player on the team.

Concrete Examples of the Erosion of the Position: Please list at least two recognized low post moves in the following player's "arsenal:"

1. Dikembe Mutumbo
2. Marcus Camby
3. Ben Wallace

[DPG21920]

I don't think we are even speaking the same language. Obviously, no NBA team is sending up a white flag to forfeit because they have no one to play center on any given night. I'm talking about the quality of the position.

I have no idea how old you are. I'm not going to be a about it and assume blah, blah, blah. My point: traditional basketball wisdom has been that you build around a true center with both skill sets. The ABA era changed this approach because the ABA couldn't lure the skilled bigs into their league. (As always, skilled bigs were too busy going in the first round of the NBA draft.) After the merger, the NBA initially had a shortage of skilled bigs, which led to an opening up of the game, ABA style.

For reasons I don't fully understand myself, NBA teams began to evaluate centers primarily on height and take flyers on big guys who couldn't play. I suspect that the shortage in the talent pool pressured this trend. This is very different from traditional pro basketball (pre-merger), when it was expected that the center was the best or second-best player on the team.

Concrete Examples of the Erosion of the Position: Please list at least two recognized low post moves in the following player's "arsenal:"

1. Dikembe Mutumbo
2. Marcus Camby
3. Ben Wallace

I get what you are saying, but I disagree with what it implies, thats all. By listing those players, you are saying they are one dimensional. You are also implying that by % alone, that there are more "small" players to choose from. What that implies is an undervaluing of what great guards do. There is just as much of a dilution of guards with one dimension (usually scoring, or just passing; Gilbert, J-Kidd) that are considered "great" now as well.

[Viva LOS LAKERS!]

[Reggie Miller]

I get what you are saying, but I disagree with what it implies, thats all. By listing those players, you are saying they are one dimensional. You are also implying that by % alone, that there are more "small" players to choose from. What that implies is an undervaluing of what great guards do. There is just as much of a dilution of guards with one dimension (usually scoring, or just passing; Gilbert, J-Kidd) that are considered "great" now as well.

I won't flat out contradict you, because this is also true. There has been erosion of guard play as well. In the past, all guards were expected to shoot a respectable FT%, pass, have a decent jump shot, and be virtually automatic on set shots. (There are guards in the league today who probably don't know what a set shot is, believe it or not.) The isolations and "slashing" style of the last decade or so has created a lot of quick guards who have neither the full guard skill set, nor the post moves of a true forward. Tinsley comes to mind immediately.

However, the disparity of talent at the guard positions SHOULD be smaller, and it has traditionally been true in the past. In other words, the gap between an "elite" and "average" guard should not be as significant as with the bigs, because the talent pool is so many times larger.

Concrete Example: How many times of you heard of basketball coaches recruiting foreign bigs who have basically never played organized basketball before? They don't do that with guards!

[DPG21920]

I agree with people taking more of a gamble on project bigs, because you cannot teach size, but this all goes back to someone saying elite bigs (which they tried to include Bynum in) are somehow light years more valuable than elite guards which is what I debated. They also said that many teams would trade for Bynum at the expense of their best guards, which is not true.

[Reggie Miller]

I agree with people taking more of a gamble on project bigs, because you cannot teach size, but this all goes back to someone saying elite bigs (which they tried to include Bynum in) are somehow light years more valuable than elite guards which is what I debated. They also said that many teams would trade for Bynum at the expense of their best guards, which is not true.

Assuming Bynum is as good as the Laker fans here think (which is a pretty damn high bar, actually), you would be surprised by how many GMs would be interested in trading their best guard for him. Most GMs are still traditionalists at heart; it's just that elite bigs don't become available often enough to see it happen.

In today's game, elite bigs are not as important as they once were, but I would still stick to the "disparity" approach that I have outlined. That is, if I have a great center, he is likely to be a MUCH better player than the hypothetical "average" center.

The entire picture is somewhat clouded by the fact that today's players suck at fundamentals, by and large. As you pointed out, there is too much specialization, and too many one-dimensional players are making big bucks.

[Allanon]

I agree with people taking more of a gamble on project bigs, because you cannot teach size, but this all goes back to someone saying elite bigs (which they tried to include Bynum in) are somehow light years more valuable than elite guards which is what I debated. They also said that many teams would trade for Bynum at the expense of their best guards, which is not true.

Bynum IS an elite center even if it's because all the Centers pretty much suck. It's a huge advantage to have a Bynum on your team with so many crappy Centers in the NBA now.

Bynum compared to say Kareem would not be elite but when you compare Bynum to a decent NBA center like Chris Kaman, Bynum is elite as . In that Clipper game, Bynum got whatever he wanted against Kaman and blocked Chris a couple of times.

I guarantee you Chicago would trade up #1 draft pick Derrick Rose for Bynum in a second.

CP3, DWill obviously no. But Tony Parker is a maybe in a trade for Bynum for the simple fact that the Spurs know the value of quality big men. Spurs have been trying to replace their Center for years now (Tiago Splitter, Ian Mahinmi and that other guy I forgot his name)

Any point guard below Tony Parker's level and there would no longer be any question about pulling that trigger.