Does Size Really Matter?
| 13
|
by user Zupaclypse
With the post-season success of teams such as the Phoenix Suns, Golden State Warriors, and Chicago Bulls, the perception of the model NBA franchise has changed significantly in recent years. Prior to the emergence of the Suns, the NBA landscape was dominated by teams with sizable big men. The old-school view was that in order to compete for a championship, a back-to-the-basket five man (e.g. Shaquille O'Neal) who clogged up the lane would provide the most success in the playoffs, when the game slowed down to a half-court grind it out battle. Teams that had multiple big bodies (Spurs with David Robinson and Tim Duncan and Detroit with Rasheed and Ben Wallace) often faired even better.
The Chicago Bulls run in the 90s was considered an exception to the rule, mainly because they had the worlds greater player in Michael Jordan. However, after the demise of the Laker dynasty, the league decided that it had had enough of 160 point ballgames. They began tweaking the rules of the game, enforcing hand-checking on the perimeter, allowing zone defenses, and even widening the court. This is when the Phoenix Suns, having just signed free agent Steve Nash, began their run that has ultimately changed the product we see on the floor today.
With floor vision not seen since the likes of Magic Johnson, Nash transformed the Suns into a run-and-gun team that won a remarkable 61 games without a tradional 5 man. Steve picked up an MVP award that year, but the Suns bowed out to the more experienced Spurs in the Western Conference finals in 5 games. The past two seasons, the Suns, despite suffering critical injuries (including a year without their center Amare Stoudamire), have continued to put their imprint on the game, winning over fans from across the globe. After a series with the Spurs that ended in controversy, it is clear that the Suns are America's team because of their entertaining run-and-gun style of play.
Although the Suns invented small ball, the Chicago Bulls and Golden State Warriors both employed this concept to great results this post-season. The Bulls swept the defending champion Miami Heat, overcoming a huge size disadvantage (their center is 6-9), with athletic and sweet-shooting guards and small forwards. The Warriors knocked out a 67-win powerhouse in the Dallas Mavericks, relying on a band of athletes (6'3" to 6'9") who switched screens, and ran the Mavs out of their structured offense and into an early summer. Although both franchises hit roadblocks in the second round where it appeared that size impacted the outcomes, a more accurate conclusion would be that they lost due to a vast experience gap moreso than size by itself.
Since only one team wins the Larry O'Brien Trophy each season, the fact that several teams enjoyed success at the NBA's biggest stage (and winning over a large fan base with style of play) without the traditional height advantage of the past demonstrates that the league is migrating from a game of size and strength to a game of speed, versatility, and athleticism. This combined with the continous rule tweaks by the league to allow a more free-following game, proves that the strategies for building a contender have changed. The consensus is that size is no longer the key part of the equation. Stay tuned for how this impacts the role of franchise building in the near future.
Sure, the Warriors beat the Mavs. w00t w00t for them. You know why? The assistant coach of the warriors was the once the coach of the Warriors (I'm not sure about that but they were in the same franchise at one point and time). Since he knew both teams, he knew who to guard who, what plays to use, etc.
Besides, it was one playoff series. Who else (besides a team with the same situation w/ the Warriors and Mavs) is going to beat a team with 25 more wins than you in the regular season? You'd have to have all 5 of the starters injured in order for that to happen. Like you said Taytay24, having the big man will always have an advantage. Who would you rather have?
Bird or Kareem? Drexler or Olajuwan? Shaq (in prime) or LeBron?
...Yes, I think I'd take Shaq in his prime over LeBron cuz he's the BIG MAN, and it would probably take 3 guys to defend him in the key.