Re: 3.5

[Joe Hironaka <j.hironaka@unesco.org>]

Steve "The Ambassador of" Kwon wrote:

> i guess i've caused a stir with my "3.5's don't make their mark in this
> league!"  maybe i should clarify my point.
>
> someobody listed all these "3.5's" but i don't think all of those guys were
> 3.5's.  offensively being a 3.5 is not a bad thing... it's probably an
> advantage.  but i consider 4's to be guys who spend most of their time with
> the back to the basket and 3's 50/50, facing/back. but anyways... offensively,
> 3.5's are fine.
>
> defensively, tweeners classically have problems.  1.5's (dana barros), 3.5's
> (larry johnson), 4.5's (toni battie)... usually not quick enough or not big
> enough to cover either one.  now if you have old friend kevin in the lineup...
> he can cover anybody bird couldn't so defensively... it worked.  can antoine
> cover 4's?  i don't mean any 4.... i mean elite 4's because afterall... that's
> what we want him to be.  just wondering.
>
> i hope this made sense... i'm not feeling to hot today so i doubt it.  thanks
> for reading anyways.

****

It makes sense to me.

That long list Peter Delevett sent you is probably debatable, but, in general, the
coaching trend is to try to make every NBA forward a "3.5", namely versatile
enough to play an inside and outside game EVEN if this often translates to
decreased proficiency in any one aspect of the offensive game.

Being able to handle defensive responsibilities is another matter, as you are
perfectly right to point out. If a guy can handle it, then it frankly doesn't
matter if he/she has a complete inside-outside game offensively. Elton Brand will
be a good test to see whether a stubbornly "classic" power forward can still
dominate at the NBA level.