share

Height is overrated

mmichnowicz1
Registered User
Joined: 05/21/2009
Posts: 81
Points: 32
Offline
Height is overrated

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.


shipargos
Registered User
Joined: 06/24/2008
Posts: 227
Points: 198
Offline
Basketbal Future

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-

JNixon
JNixon's picture
Registered User
Joined: 04/14/2009
Posts: 12959
Points: 11022
Offline
It helps

If your short and have a ridiculous wingspan, it helps you play bigger than you are (ie Rondo, Iverson). You can get shots off easier and play better defense. Height is important though, but if you have long enough arms, it tends to not matter

mmichnowicz1
Registered User
Joined: 05/21/2009
Posts: 81
Points: 32
Offline
iverson

Iverson actually had short arms at 6' 3.25. Dwayne Wade Had ridiclous arms, and so does tyreke evens. With Wade Measuring 6' 10.75, and Evans measuring 6' 11.25"

ctw724
Registered User
Joined: 04/09/2009
Posts: 501
Points: -29
Offline
Do you want a Basketball Player or an Athlete with Potential?

If I were an NBA G.M., I would take the Basketball Player over the Athlete with Potential everytime.

(DeJuan Blair over B.J. Mullens)

llperez
llperez's picture
Registered User
Joined: 04/13/2009
Posts: 11895
Points: 11691
Offline
height

height and reach are very important in basketball. Not so much for rebounds or offense, but for playing defense.

mmichnowicz1
Registered User
Joined: 05/21/2009
Posts: 81
Points: 32
Offline
height

but really height is completely irrelvevant, height to your shoulders matters much more, and your reach is what actually maters for rebounds, unless your catching the ball with your head

NYKnicksuperFan
Registered User
Joined: 02/19/2009
Posts: 258
Points: 85
Offline
Sometimes

for guards its underated you can be 5'11( A.I) and have a fantastic career but for big men it matters if your not 6'9 youre going to run into some problems with your career( Dejuan Blair?)

auber
auber's picture
Registered User
Joined: 06/13/2008
Posts: 789
Points: 63
Offline
I think Blair will be solid

I think Blair will be solid if anything. A poor mans Antonio Mcdyess maybe? He's 6'6 with a 7'2 wingspan.

tli232
Registered User
Joined: 04/11/2009
Posts: 601
Points: 577
Offline
Most important for point guards

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.

s2jepeka
Registered User
Joined: 04/17/2009
Posts: 138
Points: 22
Offline
Man git this non sense outta

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

gatorheels
gatorheels's picture
Registered User
Joined: 05/25/2009
Posts: 3232
Points: 1493
Offline
I couldn't agree more. I

I couldn't agree more. I would take Blair over Mullens anyday. I would take Hansbrough over Mullens.

auber
auber's picture
Registered User
Joined: 06/13/2008
Posts: 789
Points: 63
Offline
BJ Mullens coming out to the

BJ Mullens coming out to the draft this year is the reincarnation of Robert Swift. Can you say 40 year old virgin?

mmichnowicz1
Registered User
Joined: 05/21/2009
Posts: 81
Points: 32
Offline
Those players you named

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.

mb6297
mb6297's picture
Registered User
Joined: 05/12/2009
Posts: 164
Points: 4
Offline
Barkley, Rodman 6-6

Charles Barkley was 6-6
Dennis Rodman was 6-6

Enough said..

Obviously they are exceptions, but my point is that there are more important characteristics than height.

Shawn Bradley and Gheorge Muresan at 7-5/7-7 weren't the best guys either.

mmichnowicz1
Registered User
Joined: 05/21/2009
Posts: 81
Points: 32
Offline
Barkley is shorter than 6-6

Barkley is shorter than 6-6 i met him i am 6-3 he was like an inch taller than me, i met Tyreke Evans and he did not seem the height he is listed as

auber
auber's picture
Registered User
Joined: 06/13/2008
Posts: 789
Points: 63
Offline
Barkley was 6'4 tops. You

Barkley was 6'4 tops. You will never see a player of his caliber play in this league again. I think Dennis Rodman was taller though. maybe 6'7 or 6'8. I read his auto biography and it was pretty good, but I forgot how tall he said he was.

johneco
Registered User
Joined: 05/11/2009
Posts: 127
Points: 41
Offline
@auber I can't believe you

@auber
I can't believe you compared Blair to McDyess, that's crazy-talk.
McDyess (before his injuries) was one of the most athletic high flying big men ever...

auber
auber's picture
Registered User
Joined: 06/13/2008
Posts: 789
Points: 63
Offline
I mean post injuries. The

I mean post injuries. The comparison isn't that far off.

rtbt
Registered User
Joined: 03/25/2009
Posts: 1602
Points: 709
Offline
Blake Griffin a Bust because of inches?

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.

The lake show2
The lake show2's picture
Registered User
Joined: 05/26/2009
Posts: 6717
Points: 1248
Offline
shipargos

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

RSS: Syndicate content