This is something I really never understood. IT seems that if you are taller and physically athletic- basket ball IQ, character and most importantly heart, all seem to be given lesser importance. I am not suggesting size is not important- but I think the athlete should first have the Basketball IQ, Character and Heart- before I would put a premium on physciall attributes. There seems to be "group think" on this- desptite evidence to the contrary. So the general stereortype for a Point guard is a size of 6' 3" SF/SG 6' 8, PF 6'11 and Center to be 7' 0 + ( not to mention weight) Good/ intelligent athletes compensate for small differences in Physical attributes ( I am not talking of a 6' center!)- I think it is a question of skills and attitude- unfortunately with all the media hype, we never get to know people's true potential. Appreciate your thoughts.
The only time I really think there is a premium put on size alone is when talking about young players. As a player matures they can become smarter and better players but size is something you can't teach. A player with more size has the potential to be a better player than one without.
Detroit is very interested in size, but it isn't height they're interested in. Detroit loves wingspan/reach. Prince, Sheed, Ben, and the rest all have insane wingspans. This isn't the only factor, but it is high on their list of tangibles. Obviously they look for competitors and skills too, but you can actually measure reach or height and that's why it's mentioned so much. You can't measure a competitive spirit in the same way.
Generally speaking, size is important because of defense. An undersized player is usually a defensive liability, so they are only good in small doses or certain situations.
also if an undersized player has the attributes you deem more desirable, he would make it in the league. there is enough evidence to support that.
David Wesley, Luther Head, etc, can't get a good jump shot off to save their lives without having enough space, usually created by Tmac......size does matter, but it's not the only thing. Tmac can shoot in the face of 7 footers, due to his height, athletic ability, smarts, AND length. You can't teach physical attributes, so if you start off with a good physical body, you can add the other stuff as he matures.
Yep, good big man is always better than the good little man or to quote our coach JVG, "Yao wakes up every morning 7'6" tall".
TECH- Agreed you cant teach "size"- All I was pointing out the first thing people talk about is Size. I can make a reasonable case that just as you can't teach Size, there are solid examples that you can't teach Basketball IQ, Court Vision and Work Ethic! My point was more nuanced- just to clarify- it seems players with good talent often get overlooked because of 'Size'. Someone mentioned Tayshaun Prince- this guy is not built like a tank, that is my point, but he could reach an All star calibre soon ( maybe that is a slight exaggeration!)- he was not picked higher because his body frame is to "skinny". I am not talking of people with Size AND SKILL or for that matter superstars.
Many times, work ethic, IQ and court vision isn't enough. You have to have the skills and physical attributes to make it in the NBA. You can look at a guy for a few minutes and determine if his physical game has potential. The other aspects could take a long time to show. So, you start with what you can verify at that time. Superstars aren't super right out of the box either, they grow into that role, some more quickly than others. Most superstars have the physical aspect from the start. The other aspects of the game are taught and learned as they mature. It's true that many high potential players never materialize into stars due to the aspects that you bring up. Teams just have to hope that the gamble they make on potential will eventually pay off.
This is why T-mac, Kobe, and perhaps lebron are just amazing, physically. Take away injuries and personality and try to find a weakness in their game. I watched a game with T-mac up close and my draw was dropped the whole time, just to see someone so tall.. Tmac has to be close to 6'10", to be so quick, and handle the ball so well and jump so high with relative ease.. its just amazing to watch. But then you see any other Joe who's 6'9" who stinks up the joint (Bowen) and makes you apreciate how naturally gifted some players are. The player that is equally amazing is ALLEN IVERSON. Imo the best 6 footer to ever play the game. Yao and Shaq each have those gifts that all teams hope to find in a BIG bigman, or a little man that plays BIG.
The problem with shorter players has less to do with offense. Generally if you're small and have talent you can carve out a solid offensive game regardless of the opponents size. There have been all sorts of smaller players that could definitely keep up on offense with taller players. Instead, the real issue is defense. Giving up a lot of size on the other end is a huge problem and simply can't be corrected. David Wesley is an above average defender but he gives up a lot of size against taller guards that can post up on him or just shoot right over him. That's why most talented smaller players don't get picked up. They just don't have the ability to keep up with larger players.
You can't teach athletic ability either. I mean, you can teach techniques to improve speed, strength and agility but the ability to put them all together is a skill in itself. I think it has alot to do with what type of environment a player comes from as well. I live in a small town and back in high school the tall guys on the court or the big guys on the football field relied on just there size because it pushed them over the top without having to add extra effort. One guy in particular used his height (about 6'7") so much that although he had skill he didn't really have athletic ability. Coincidently he didn't like it when I came in 6 inches shorter and started blocking his shots. I agree with both sides of the debate to some degree. Though personally I'll take an "undersized" player that is accustomed to making up for his size. But then, I like rooting for underdogs.
There are things other than physical attributes that cannot be taught. As the thread starter mentioned, things like court vision, IQ, mentality, and even shooting can only be improved by coaching and experience to a very limited degree. Many of the things you either have it or you don't. So I agree that "you can't teach size" is an overrated cliche. That said, physical attributes are the easiest things to evaluate. So I don't fault the "obsession" with size. It's just that if all you look for in a young player is his size and athletic abilities, then that's not a very good way to evaluate talent.
All of these are very important, as is size. But when evaluating young players, you can definitely measure size. You can't measure the others; they must be proven during NBA play. When players have an NBA track record, size doesn't mean as much because their track record proves what they can and cannot do. In a general sense, when you look at the most successful players in the NBA by postion, size is a plus. Like someone said earlier, being shorter usually hurts a players' defense and makes it harder to get off shots on offense.
While size does seem to be a factor is teams' thinking, I think it actually means a lot more to armchair coaches than it does to the real ones.
