sluggo said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

sluggo said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Uthaithani said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

I can only go by what I see. Two years and one shot beyond point blank range. Bodies? Ok. I think we could find someone better. Come back after next year and tell me how much he has improved. Yogi is spot on. Maybe Fox can work a miracle.

Ps. How can you be listed as a shooting guard when you can't shoot ?

---

Because stand-around-and-try-not-to-do-anything-stupid guard sounds really harsh.

---

no one seems to care about defense. now I don't think Dyson is a great defender yet, but he won two games on the last play of the game ... one I already talked about from his freshmen year. another one where he locked down his defender on the last play of the game, shut him down, and forced a turnover

we need length, athleticism, and hustle on defense...things we needed more of last year

also, basketball is a game. it is for entertainment, and he is one of our most exciting players, making some of the most exciting plays (and I don't even mean just his dunks)

we are absolutely better with Dyson

---

More than just better. Given the players expected to stay committed and the returning players not expected to transfer, Dyson will start. Austin, Bradley, Dyson, plus 2 out of Kelly, Thorpe, Anticevich and Vanover (if he stays). If Gordon recovers from his injury maybe Dyson is first wing off the bench. I don't expect a better wing to arrive because Cal, though it is within reason.

Am I missing something?

Sluggo

---

Yeah. With a real coach, I'll bet you that Kelly and Vanover start (if he returns) and Dyson comes off the bench, like all scrubs do on real teams.

---

No coach, even "real" ones, starts more than two bigs, and some start only one. I think your post would make more sense if you mentioned other wings. Unfortunately, Cal does not have any other than walk-ons and Gordon, who seems not to have fully recovered from his injury.

I think it is good that a probable future starter is returning, even if he is not fully developed.

Sluggo

---

Mark Few is a real coach, right? https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sbnation.com/platform/amp/college-basketball/2017/3/26/15063560/gonzaga-bulldogs-final-four-frontline-zach-collins-karnowski-tillie

The 1980's Celtics went 7'0 Parish, 6'11(longer wingspan) McHale and 6'9 (with little foot speed) Bird.

The key is spacing on offense (Best If two bigs are able to shoot outside) and playing zone on defense.

A key to getting the most from your team is to have your best players on the court as much as possible and creating an advantage for your team. Not saying we should play 3 "bigs", but we shouldn't dismiss it out of hand because the accepted wisdom is "no coach does it."

sluggo said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

sluggo said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Uthaithani said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

I can only go by what I see. Two years and one shot beyond point blank range. Bodies? Ok. I think we could find someone better. Come back after next year and tell me how much he has improved. Yogi is spot on. Maybe Fox can work a miracle.

Ps. How can you be listed as a shooting guard when you can't shoot ?

---

Because stand-around-and-try-not-to-do-anything-stupid guard sounds really harsh.

---

no one seems to care about defense. now I don't think Dyson is a great defender yet, but he won two games on the last play of the game ... one I already talked about from his freshmen year. another one where he locked down his defender on the last play of the game, shut him down, and forced a turnover

we need length, athleticism, and hustle on defense...things we needed more of last year

also, basketball is a game. it is for entertainment, and he is one of our most exciting players, making some of the most exciting plays (and I don't even mean just his dunks)

we are absolutely better with Dyson

---

More than just better. Given the players expected to stay committed and the returning players not expected to transfer, Dyson will start. Austin, Bradley, Dyson, plus 2 out of Kelly, Thorpe, Anticevich and Vanover (if he stays). If Gordon recovers from his injury maybe Dyson is first wing off the bench. I don't expect a better wing to arrive because Cal, though it is within reason.

Am I missing something?

Sluggo

---

Yeah. With a real coach, I'll bet you that Kelly and Vanover start (if he returns) and Dyson comes off the bench, like all scrubs do on real teams.

---

No coach, even "real" ones, starts more than two bigs, and some start only one. I think your post would make more sense if you mentioned other wings. Unfortunately, Cal does not have any other than walk-ons and Gordon, who seems not to have fully recovered from his injury.

I think it is good that a probable future starter is returning, even if he is not fully developed.

Sluggo

---

I think perhaps you are interpreting how many bigs a team has on the floor at one time as being the result of the coach recruiting and planning to have just that number(2) playing at one time and no more. I think the opposite is true. I think most coaches know that unless they are going small for a certain situation, they will be in some trouble if they don't have one big on the floor. They hope they can always be able to have two bigs on the floor, but what they would like to have, and dream of is having, is three bigs on the floor, with the third big having the ability to operate like a small forward, handle the ball, shoot well outside, and be quick enough to defend the perimeter.

Calumnus has it right. Gonzaga is a good example. But you could see it here in the PAC12. This season Oregon was loaded with bigs. After 7-2 Bol went down to injury, they went with a lineup basically of Pritchard plus four 6-9 bigs: White, King, Wooten, and Okoro. Stanford started 7-0 Sharma, 6-9 DaSilva, and 6-9 Okpalo. One of the better recent PAC12 teams was 2014 Arizona with a front line of 7-0 Tarczewski, 6-9 Gordon, and 6-8 Ashley.

Calumnas brought up the Celtics of Parish, McHale and Bird. NBA teams usually go for a lot of height if they can get it. Look at the Warriors: 6-9 Durant is listed as a PF but in their system usually plays Small Forward. 6-7 Green plays like a big when he is inside. They carry 5 centers, and all of them get minutes! The only Small Forwards they have on the entire roster are Iguodala and McKinney! They are often going with three bigs at the same time, depending on the matchups and situations.

The Celtics start 6-10 Horford, 6-9 Morris, and 6-8 Tatum. The Bucks start 7-0 Lopez, 6-11 Giannis, and 6-8 Middleton.

As Calumnus says, you want to play your best players most of the time. And most if not all coaches today will start a good big player if he is mobile and has SF perimeter skills, which more and more big players have today, than a smaller SF who is equally skilled. Basketball discriminates against the shorter player of equal skills.

oskidunker said:

---

Just ban him for a while. I banned sf city but now have forgiven the pro jones rambling wrecks from Georgia tech. Most of what Yogi says is true. We all want good players on the basketball team. Some people's definition of good is different but that's ok. I hope I am wrong and Dyson becomes Jerome Randle.

---

Oskidunker,

I always figured you misunderstood my posts about WJ. That is my fault. Jones had almost nothing to recommend him except enough team improvement to win their last three games. I was trying in many ways, but could not bring myself to say it, because it was so negative, but I was predicting in my mind several more real years of basketball doom if WJ was fired at the time.

So now everything I feared has happened. Players threatened to leave, an incompetent AD hires a coach with a mediocre record, and some players do leave, another is in the portal thinking about leaving, a recruit decommits, and I'm not impressed with the assistant coach hires. The roster right now is much weaker and deficient than it was after the 2018 season.

Unless this coach is a lot better than most of us think he is, the Cal program is staring right in the face at several more years of being a 12th place team in the PAC12.

You got what you wanted, a firing (which was well deserved) but it was done without a trial or a process that considered the consequences of what would happen after the firing. Just look at what has happened. How do you feel now? You don't really think Dyson becomes Randle, do you? He is more athletic, and a better defender right now, so he could get better, but Randle was a basketball player with several offensive skills when he arrived at Cal, and JHD was not. I'm glad to see you have hope, anyway. Without that, this team is sunk.

Zach Collins came off the bench for the Zags that year.

The main reason you don't see lineups of 3 bigger players starting on the frontline is because of defensive concerns. Basketball in general has been trending to smaller lineups, particularly at the 3 and 4 spots. Advanced metrics have generally shown that playing bigger lineups doesn't yield great results in most circumstances.

calumnus said:

---

sluggo said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

sluggo said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Uthaithani said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

I can only go by what I see. Two years and one shot beyond point blank range. Bodies? Ok. I think we could find someone better. Come back after next year and tell me how much he has improved. Yogi is spot on. Maybe Fox can work a miracle.

Ps. How can you be listed as a shooting guard when you can't shoot ?

---

Because stand-around-and-try-not-to-do-anything-stupid guard sounds really harsh.

---

no one seems to care about defense. now I don't think Dyson is a great defender yet, but he won two games on the last play of the game ... one I already talked about from his freshmen year. another one where he locked down his defender on the last play of the game, shut him down, and forced a turnover

we need length, athleticism, and hustle on defense...things we needed more of last year

also, basketball is a game. it is for entertainment, and he is one of our most exciting players, making some of the most exciting plays (and I don't even mean just his dunks)

we are absolutely better with Dyson

---

More than just better. Given the players expected to stay committed and the returning players not expected to transfer, Dyson will start. Austin, Bradley, Dyson, plus 2 out of Kelly, Thorpe, Anticevich and Vanover (if he stays). If Gordon recovers from his injury maybe Dyson is first wing off the bench. I don't expect a better wing to arrive because Cal, though it is within reason.

Am I missing something?

Sluggo

---

Yeah. With a real coach, I'll bet you that Kelly and Vanover start (if he returns) and Dyson comes off the bench, like all scrubs do on real teams.

---

No coach, even "real" ones, starts more than two bigs, and some start only one. I think your post would make more sense if you mentioned other wings. Unfortunately, Cal does not have any other than walk-ons and Gordon, who seems not to have fully recovered from his injury.

I think it is good that a probable future starter is returning, even if he is not fully developed.

Sluggo

---

Mark Few is a real coach, right? https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sbnation.com/platform/amp/college-basketball/2017/3/26/15063560/gonzaga-bulldogs-final-four-frontline-zach-collins-karnowski-tillie

The 1980's Celtics went 7'0 Parish, 6'11(longer wingspan) McHale and 6'9 (with little foot speed) Bird.

The key is spacing on offense (Best If two bigs are able to shoot outside) and playing zone on defense.

A key to getting the most from your team is to have your best players on the court as much as possible and creating an advantage for your team. Not saying we should play 3 "bigs", but we shouldn't dismiss it out of hand because the accepted wisdom is "no coach does it."

---

tsubamoto2001 said:

---

Zach Collins came off the bench for the Zags that year.

The main reason you don't see lineups of 3 bigger players starting on the frontline is because of defensive concerns. Basketball in general has been trending to smaller lineups, particularly at the 3 and 4 spots. Advanced metrics have generally shown that playing bigger lineups doesn't yield great results in most circumstances.

calumnus said:

---

sluggo said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

sluggo said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Uthaithani said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

I can only go by what I see. Two years and one shot beyond point blank range. Bodies? Ok. I think we could find someone better. Come back after next year and tell me how much he has improved. Yogi is spot on. Maybe Fox can work a miracle.

Ps. How can you be listed as a shooting guard when you can't shoot ?

---

Because stand-around-and-try-not-to-do-anything-stupid guard sounds really harsh.

---

no one seems to care about defense. now I don't think Dyson is a great defender yet, but he won two games on the last play of the game ... one I already talked about from his freshmen year. another one where he locked down his defender on the last play of the game, shut him down, and forced a turnover

we need length, athleticism, and hustle on defense...things we needed more of last year

also, basketball is a game. it is for entertainment, and he is one of our most exciting players, making some of the most exciting plays (and I don't even mean just his dunks)

we are absolutely better with Dyson

---

More than just better. Given the players expected to stay committed and the returning players not expected to transfer, Dyson will start. Austin, Bradley, Dyson, plus 2 out of Kelly, Thorpe, Anticevich and Vanover (if he stays). If Gordon recovers from his injury maybe Dyson is first wing off the bench. I don't expect a better wing to arrive because Cal, though it is within reason.

Am I missing something?

Sluggo

---

Yeah. With a real coach, I'll bet you that Kelly and Vanover start (if he returns) and Dyson comes off the bench, like all scrubs do on real teams.

---

No coach, even "real" ones, starts more than two bigs, and some start only one. I think your post would make more sense if you mentioned other wings. Unfortunately, Cal does not have any other than walk-ons and Gordon, who seems not to have fully recovered from his injury.

I think it is good that a probable future starter is returning, even if he is not fully developed.

Sluggo

---

Mark Few is a real coach, right? https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sbnation.com/platform/amp/college-basketball/2017/3/26/15063560/gonzaga-bulldogs-final-four-frontline-zach-collins-karnowski-tillie

The 1980's Celtics went 7'0 Parish, 6'11(longer wingspan) McHale and 6'9 (with little foot speed) Bird.

The key is spacing on offense (Best If two bigs are able to shoot outside) and playing zone on defense.

A key to getting the most from your team is to have your best players on the court as much as possible and creating an advantage for your team. Not saying we should play 3 "bigs", but we shouldn't dismiss it out of hand because the accepted wisdom is "no coach does it."

---

---

The lineups depended on opponents. The point is Few has played 3 (of his 4) bigs at times when it gives him an advantage.

The key revolution in modern basketball is recognition of the importance of shooting the three and defending the three. Generally that has lead to "smaller" lineups, but not necessarily. The main thing is the old ideas of what a 5-4-3-2-1 is are out the window. If you have 3 Kevin Durant's, play them...

It's spectacular that sfcitybear calls Draymond Green a big in the basis that he plays like one, which is true; but also calls Kevin Durant a big on the sole basis of his height though he plays outside. He can have his cake and eat it too!

we need kids who cab shoot/score whatever their height.

oski003 said:

---

It's spectacular that sfcitybear calls Draymond Green a big in the basis that he plays like one, which is true; but also calls Kevin Durant a big on the sole basis of his height though he plays outside. He can have his cake and eat it too!

---

In the context of this discussion, they are all "bigs." That is the point.

They both play inside and outside on offense, but can provide interior defense.

However, the key to why they are NBA champions is they can competently defend outside as well.

In the Cal context, it is more difficult. Assuming Vanover and Kelly start, would you rather start Dyson or Grant (if those are the only choices), acknowledging that neither is ideal at this point? I won't argue against Dyson, but I think we are going to need to consider all possibilities, none of which is ideal. Conner and Grant shooting outside with Kelly down low, has some attraction from an offensive standpoint. However, defense would need to be zone, which is the antithesis of what Fox is about, so we can safely bet it won't happen. Thus, Dyson coming back is a good thing. Let's just hope he develops a shot.

If bigs are merely players that are 6'8 and up, yeah, a lot of teams, especially in the NBA, play 3 bigs.

I'd rather start Dyson with Vanover and Kelly; otherwise, the defense would be too slow and shooters would get open pretty easily.

oski003 said:

---

It's spectacular that sfcitybear calls Draymond Green a big in the basis that he plays like one, which is true; but also calls Kevin Durant a big on the sole basis of his height though he plays outside. He can have his cake and eat it too!

---

I'd like to enjoy that cake, but the problem was that no one really defined the word "big" for this discussion, so we can all take some latitude here, and we have. Sluggo started this discussion of "bigs" but did not define what he meant by "big". Calumnus assumed (I think) that Sluggo implied big meant height, and he went with that. No one is right or wrong here. "Big" is a relatively new term in basketball as a slang term, which has not yet appeared in Webster's dictionary, and that can lead us to make up our own definitions. Initially, the words, "big man" appeared, and referred to the center, or tallest player on the team. Back in Wilt Chamberlain's day, "big" referred to him at 7-1 or 7-3 or whatever you choose to believe about him, and he usually played against teams which had a 6-9 to 7-0 center to go against him. In the latter years of Wilt's career, he played at 310 lbs, so he was a big, big man, andy way you look at it. Much later the term "big" applied to anyone who was tall for his position, any position. 6-7 George Gervin was big for a shooting guard in his day, and 6-9 Magic was really big for a point guard in his day. And today, Kevin Durant is big for a small forward when he plays that position.

As players filled out and became heavier, the "big man" term applied to the center, and it usually was understood that the player that height would have a good amount of mass also. Today, many fans apply the word "big" as a shortened term for "big man", and they apply it to front line players, especially the center and power forward. So in today's vernacular, 6-7 Zion Williamson at 285 lbs, and 6-8 Andre Kelly at 260-270 lbs would be called "bigs".

As to Durant, he is listed on the Warrior roster as a Power Forward, and he does play inside much of the time, so technically, what is wrong with calling him a big? Because he has the skill to play outside as well, and usually plays a small forward, then outside the perimeter, he is no longer a big? He is still 6-9, isn't he? Green plays three positions, C, PF, SF, and two of them are "big man positions, so isn't he a big?

So as the game changes, the players change in size, the positions change in what kind of skills they require, and the nomenclature also changes with the times. Right now the word "big" means what we choose it to mean.

D green is absolutely a big

KD is the most unique player in the NBA

You can put him in any category you want and you will be right, including PG which he plays quite a lot

Also what position he plays defensively depends on who the opponent has on the court

Kevin Durant plays anywhere he wants. Draymond is a little "big" who can guard almost anybody and leads his team in assists. I'd settle for us having guys who can play ONE position decently.

SFCityBear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

It's spectacular that sfcitybear calls Draymond Green a big in the basis that he plays like one, which is true; but also calls Kevin Durant a big on the sole basis of his height though he plays outside. He can have his cake and eat it too!

---

I'd like to enjoy that cake, but the problem was that no one really defined the word "big" for this discussion, so we can all take some latitude here, and we have. Sluggo started this discussion of "bigs" but did not define what he meant by "big". Calumnus assumed (I think) that Sluggo implied big meant height, and he went with that. No one is right or wrong here. "Big" is a relatively new term in basketball as a slang term, which has not yet appeared in Webster's dictionary, and that can lead us to make up our own definitions. Initially, the words, "big man" appeared, and referred to the center, or tallest player on the team. Back in Wilt Chamberlain's day, "big" referred to him at 7-1 or 7-3 or whatever you choose to believe about him, and he usually played against teams which had a 6-9 to 7-0 center to go against him. In the latter years of Wilt's career, he played at 310 lbs, so he was a big, big man, andy way you look at it. Much later the term "big" applied to anyone who was tall for his position, any position. 6-7 George Gervin was big for a shooting guard in his day, and 6-9 Magic was really big for a point guard in his day. And today, Kevin Durant is big for a small forward when he plays that position.

---

I did not define "big", but I think of a big as someone whose skills are better closer to the basket, while a "perimeter" player is someone better away from the basket. It is not really about height.

Against almost any opponent Cal needs at least 3 perimeter players all the time in order to defend. Among Cal's taller players (taller than Gordon), none are skilled playing man defense away from the basket. For that reason, more than two are unlikely to play at one time, whether you want to call them bigs or not. Which gets us back to Austin, Brown, Bradley, Dyson, Gordon, and hopefully a recruit to be named later sharing at least three positions. And, I think, Dyson starting. Glad he is back.

Sluggo

sluggo said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

It's spectacular that sfcitybear calls Draymond Green a big in the basis that he plays like one, which is true; but also calls Kevin Durant a big on the sole basis of his height though he plays outside. He can have his cake and eat it too!

---

I'd like to enjoy that cake, but the problem was that no one really defined the word "big" for this discussion, so we can all take some latitude here, and we have. Sluggo started this discussion of "bigs" but did not define what he meant by "big". Calumnus assumed (I think) that Sluggo implied big meant height, and he went with that. No one is right or wrong here. "Big" is a relatively new term in basketball as a slang term, which has not yet appeared in Webster's dictionary, and that can lead us to make up our own definitions. Initially, the words, "big man" appeared, and referred to the center, or tallest player on the team. Back in Wilt Chamberlain's day, "big" referred to him at 7-1 or 7-3 or whatever you choose to believe about him, and he usually played against teams which had a 6-9 to 7-0 center to go against him. In the latter years of Wilt's career, he played at 310 lbs, so he was a big, big man, andy way you look at it. Much later the term "big" applied to anyone who was tall for his position, any position. 6-7 George Gervin was big for a shooting guard in his day, and 6-9 Magic was really big for a point guard in his day. And today, Kevin Durant is big for a small forward when he plays that position.

---

I did not define "big", but I think of a big as someone whose skills are better closer to the basket, while a "perimeter" player is someone better away from the basket. It is not really about height.

Against almost any opponent Cal needs at least 3 perimeter players all the time in order to defend. Among Cal's taller players (taller than Gordon), none are skilled playing man defense away from the basket. For that reason, more than two are unlikely to play at one time, whether you want to call them bigs or not. Which gets us back to Austin, Brown, Bradley, Dyson, Gordon, and hopefully a recruit to be named later sharing at least three positions. And, I think, Dyson starting. Glad he is back.

Sluggo

---

This is fairly close to my definition of a "big". I think of a "big" as someone who defends better in the paint then on the perimeter.

This is why comparisons to what happened with the 1980 Celtics or whatever happened in 1959 is irrelevant.

The game has changed (obviously) where the game is now dominated by the three point line and pnrs. During the playoffs, even the dubs are super reluctant to put even a single big on the court who can't guard pnrs (let alone 2 or 3).

Which is why it's very difficult to play more than 2 bigs unless you have a freak like draymond who can be an elite defender in the paint and defend the perimeter.

This is the bottom line. If you have "bigs" who won't get cooked defending pnrs, then you can play multiple bigs. Not a lot of teams have that type of luxury. And definitely not cal.

Thanks, Stu!

ducky23 said:

---

sluggo said:

---

I did not define "big", but I think of a big as someone whose skills are better closer to the basket, while a "perimeter" player is someone better away from the basket. It is not really about height.

Against almost any opponent Cal needs at least 3 perimeter players all the time in order to defend. Among Cal's taller players (taller than Gordon), none are skilled playing man defense away from the basket. For that reason, more than two are unlikely to play at one time, whether you want to call them bigs or not. Which gets us back to Austin, Brown, Bradley, Dyson, Gordon, and hopefully a recruit to be named later sharing at least three positions. And, I think, Dyson starting. Glad he is back.

---

This is fairly close to my definition of a "big". I think of a "big" as someone who defends better in the paint then on the perimeter.

This is why comparisons to what happened with the 1980 Celtics or whatever happened in 1959 is irrelevant.

The game has changed (obviously) where the game is now dominated by the three point line and pnrs. During the playoffs, even the dubs are super reluctant to put even a single big on the court who can't guard pnrs (let alone 2 or 3).

Which is why it's very difficult to play more than 2 bigs unless you have a freak like draymond who can be an elite defender in the paint and defend the perimeter.

This is the bottom line. If you have "bigs" who won't get cooked defending pnrs, then you can play multiple bigs. Not a lot of teams have that type of luxury. And definitely not cal.

---

I don't think the day of the post-up offensive player is dead, nor do I think playing 2 large men defensively is dead - especially in college where it's much easier to play zone. Defending the three in both college and the pros is supremely important for your defense, but I think teams play into other team's hands by giving them the switch they want. Either fight around the screen like teams used to or be judicious about which guys can switch and which can't, but keeping your tall guy near the hoop to defend is still an important component of good defensive basketball and rebounding is not passe.

JHD is not mentioned on this page.
Remember the days when if you posted about anything non Cal people would complain and tell you to get a new thread, or go to OT?

concordtom said:

---

JHD is not mentioned on this page.
Remember the days when if you posted about anything non Cal people would complain and tell you to get a new thread, or go to OT?

---

It means people have no interest in the thread, which is understandable.

>". . . I'd like to enjoy that cake, but the problem was that no one really defined the word "big" for this discussion, so we can all take some latitude here, and we have. Sluggo started this discussion of "bigs" but did not define what he meant by "big". Calumnus assumed (I think) that Sluggo implied big meant height, and he went with that. No one is right or wrong here. "Big" is a relatively new term in basketball as a slang term, which has not yet appeared in Webster's dictionary, and that can lead us to make up our own definitions. Initially, the words, "big man" appeared, and referred to the center, or tallest player on the team. Back in Wilt Chamberlain's day, "big" referred to him at 7-1 or 7-3 or whatever you choose to believe about him, and he usually played against teams which had a 6-9 to 7-0 center to go against him. In the latter years of Wilt's career, he played at 310 lbs, so he was a big, big man, andy way you look at it. Much later the term "big" applied to anyone who was tall for his position, any position. 6-7 George Gervin was big for a shooting guard in his day, and 6-9 Magic was really big for a point guard in his day. And today, Kevin Durant is big for a small forward when he plays that position. . . "<

It's fair to say that a "BIG" is more than merely a position.
It is a range of dimensions with maximum height to girth ratio and everything in between.
Think Shaq O'Neal (7'1"/375#) as formerly the maximum "BIG". (Also, noteworthy are shoulders and hand sizes. *See Nikola Jokic'.)
Think Charles Barkley (6''6"/450#) at the minimum end of the "BIG" spectrum. (Also, noteworthy the center of gravity.)

You have the special players like KD, GG, MJ, and also Rudy Gay (6'8") for example.