Height is overrated
Gearing towards the future, Dwight Howard is the Prototype of a modern Center (in NBA) he is bit under 6' 11 than is listed, but has more than 9 feet standing reach. It means a modern PF also, could be in the 6,8 to 6'10 with long wingspan and reach
NBA is more and more on transition game, so athleticism and speed will be prefered over height, the lumbering giants will be seen less and less, and they will probably end playing in europe in some slow tempo basketball teams.
This is also reflected in the small and athletic wings like, Wade, Westbrook, E. Gordon, Foye, etc-
Honestly, would you rather have a guy 4 inches shorter but the same standing reach at the PG position? Of course not. He can't see over the defense and make plays as well. Same goes for many point forwards. Take Magic Johnson for example (PG, I know the difference, :P). The guy can see not only over his man, but most forwards as well, making it easier to make eye contact and hook up with the open man. In the case of PGs, I'd take the taller guy, thank you very much.
HOWEVER....
I really think that in the post, for a player who isn't counted on to make plays, being shorter while having the same reach as taller player helps immensely. Take a guy like Blair for example, or Elton Brand. These guys' bodies are so compact that they can bulldoze through the defense or be cement blocks when boxing out. Their lower centre of gravity is a huge advantage as they won't be knocked over very easily. Anecdotal evidence: Chuck Hayes' relative success as a rebounder in the NBA (below 6'6" w/o shoes, but 6'10" wingspan and 8'9" stnd reach) Elton Brand consistently being one of the best rebounders in the NBA despite being only 6'8" w/o shoes. Blair toppling Thabeet a couple times, outrebounding someone with more than 6 inches advantage in standing reach.
Man git this non sense outta here. Height doesnt matter? Tell that to Marcus Fizer, Gary Trent, Corliss Williamson, etc. All of them were about equal college players as Blair (All- Americans) and all were mediocre at best b/c they are 6'6. Blair is actually 6'5!!! and 6'6 in shoes. The 6'3 shooting gurad is the most crowded position in all levels of basketball. They are a dime a dozen and they all wish they were at leats 6'5.
And somebody mentioned Iverson...1)He's the exception to the rule.
2)why cant a 6'0 player just be 6'0!!! Im sick of commentators always saying "He's listed at ...but he's probably...) Allen Iverson is 6 feet tall. No more, no less. Damn
Those players you named failed, because they were not long enough, and they could not compensate with any other skil, that is why they failed, and iverson is actually 5-10 without any height inflations by the team. The gm of the sixers came to my school when he was on the team. 5-10 is the height the sixers gm gave.
Paul Silas and Charles Oakley were both undersized power forwards who couldn't jump six inches off the ground. They used desire, intelligence, positioning, and strength to carve out careers as premiere rebounders. I think if they were judged by height and reach measurements, they wouldn't be rated very high.
Height and reach are important, but how you play the game, your intelligence, and several other factors usually carry more weight than your measurements. I had to laugh when I saw that stupid thread asking if Blake Griffin was going to be a bust because his height and/or reach was less than some people thought. Do you think Oklahoma's opponents last season were analyzing his height and reach, or were they desperately trying to figure out a way to stop a guy who is a monster on the boards and a scoring machine.
The only time I think height and reach can be a deciding factor is when you're equally high on two players and can't make up your mind. Maybe then measurements can be the deciding factor.
Sometimes there's the exception and I think this year it' D. Blair. I you look only at his height, you might think he's too short to play power forward. However, if you factor in his wingspan, he looks a lot better as a lottery choice.
yeah height is overrated but you have lost youre mind if you think big men are gonna start going to europe because there are more athletic big men..teams will still want some big men to take up space tire out more athletic big men by the fourth quarter and because some of them will be good...no matter how small or big a player
I know Height is important in basketball, but standing reach, and your arm length matter much more. Height is also the most easy thing to compensate for. If your longer, better, a smarter player, quicker , or more atheltic, or you just want it more, or stronger, you will get the rebound more often than the taller player. It is really a bad thing to care about. Still so much stock is put into it.