Ode (more or less) To The Four Position

Some of your underlying points could easily be stretched to include every position these days. The era of positional exclusivity is long gone. Hybrid multi-positional players are the norm in todays game sprinkled amongst traditional roles. We see combo guards who play both the point and the two equally well and even some who can play PG, SG, and SF if need be (think Joe Johnson). We see forwards who easily blend the lines between PF and C (Al Horford or even Dejuan Blair) and some that move between SF and PF (Rashard Lewis or even Rasheed Wallace).

I don’t feel that attempting to explicitly limit a player to one position versus all others is fair to many in this new and current era of the game. There are still many who obviously fit that bill (Rondo, Paul, Howard, etc.), but more and more I see teams moving away from those specific skillset type of players because there are less of them available. Years ago, players were specialized in their positions and it was very clear what position they played. Today however, players have expanded their game to be just as adept at driving and idshing as hitting the outside jumper as posting up. PG’s are posting up in the paint and C’s are hitting long jumpers.

Now, relating that to GOAT-type polls gets sketchy when the list includes these newer players. It’s easy to compare the guys who played 15+ years ago, not so much today. The polls will be a result of how one defines the position in their mind (what type of play is expected from the position, what type of body that position should require, etc). My personal biased opinion as an example; when I think PF, Dennis Rodman is the first to come to mind. I think enforcer, I think rebounder, I think defender. I don’t think Duncan, no matter how many times he states he is a PF, regardless of how he is listed on the teams site.

I don’t think Al Horford, who by all accounts is playing out of position, is too small to be a center, and according to his dad should be playing PF. He plays C for the Hawks and he’s the second best listed C in the NBA right now. Sure, he can (and has played) play the PF position, but I wouldn’t put his number up against others in that position right now because that’s not who he plays against and that’s not how he is utilized by the Hawks. Is that fair? I believe so.

Right now, in today’s game, I dislike the notion of limiting a player to a specific position because of body type. Using Horford as the example, he dominates just about every center in the league minus Howard and he’s shorter and smaller. He’s faster than most and more athletic than most. Some clamor that he would be even better at the four. I disagree. I dislike this antiquated idea of “true” positions. I like the fact that teams have players who can easily fill mutiple roles and positional needs in case of injury or foul trouble. Collins can play the five or the four. Horford can as well. Smith can play the 3, 4, or 5 if need be. Joe Johnson can play the 1, 2,or 3. Crawford can play the 1 or 2. Teague can play the 1 or 2. Williams can play the 3 or 4. I like that. It makes teams more versatile and allows them to more easily play match-ups not only from game-to-game, but also within the game.

I feel like I’m beginning to ramble so I’ll stop. These are my thoughts on the subject though, so maybe there’s something there.

I learned a lot listening to you.

Since no Centers play with their back to the basket anymore, the argument really devolves into “who guards the other team’s center”. The GT example was always Yvon=Center, Spider=PF, but Yvon was not a natural center based on his learning the position late in his teens after coming over from Volleyball.

Now the position usually goes to the most versatile of the team’s players (given enough height)

If I’m building a team, my depth chart is:

1. Dr. J.: Before the dunk became the only play in Pro Ball, he would break away for a dunk and the other coach HAD to call a time-out. He was the Offensive disruptor. The under the basket finger-roll that is still shown weekly is still better to me than MJ’s change of hands lay-in a few years later.

2. Kevin McHale: Team player. Traditional PF, post scoring, lots of rebounds, can run the floor.

3. Karl Malone: Post scoring, lots of rebounds, will run over other players on the floor. Longevity, loyalty to one team (never see that again).

4. Rodman: The scientist of the rebound. If he wasn’t so WAC’d out now, he’d be the dean of Board play.

5. Jerry West: Especially if I need an outside shooter with TOUCH.

6. Willis Reed: Toughness. I know he went onto be the Knicks Center, but he was more of a PF.

7. Dolph Schayes: For the other oldsters on this site.

Thanks for the Issel props. He was money every game, every year, any opponent.

I recall an SI article in 1989(?) where he talked about planting under the basket during shoot arounds and calling out the rebound directions based on the shot/arc/rim and backboard impact, and he was right an amazing percentage of the time. I games he used this predictive ability to plant his wide butt on the other player and leverage for his position at the point the ball would be 11 feet off the ground and coming down.

Dollar Bill was known to shot at a new basket, and declare how many inches high or low the rim was based on his misses. He was usually right, the rims were ONE INCH too high or low.

With the Blunt Force Trauma that the NBA game has become, I look back in awe at the precision of the old game of shoot, run, set up plays, manage the clock. Now all the games look like the All Star Game, all Offense and no Defense. Hence, I don’t watch, and with the current troubles at the TIT, I don’t watch any basketball currently. SAD.