Dwight Howard

Frank Breakfast Styleham · May 31, 2009

We've heard all about LeBron and his freakish size...we've heard all about Kobe and Dwyane Wade...

But what about Dwight Howard?

The guy goes out there and drops 40 points in a game that won his team the conference finals...he's been getting better every year...he's a 20 and 13 machine...

How seriously should we take this guy!?

Right now, we've got a baby Moses Malone right before our eyes!

dougthonus · May 31, 2009

Well P03 and I were discussing whether he'd be a top 5 center of all time or not, so I would suspect pretty seriously.

I was watching Game 6 last night with Jonathan Givony (DX), and asked him the same thing, and he thought he'd definitely rank above Hakeem before he was done. I think that's dicier, but I'm the king of disrespecting Bill Russell, so I said he'd easily pass Russell.

engies · May 31, 2009

He could well be. His a superior athelete than many of them with his sheer size, strength while still maintaining speed quickness & agility. If he can work a bit more on his jumper he'll be complete. He is still really young too so definately possible. God it sucks having to deal with Lebron & Dwight being in the Eastern conference. Its gonna be hard to get past them if they have a decent cast alongside them. Hopefully we can give Rose his sidecast as well

If Dwight played in Chamberlains day he would've probably averaged more than Wilt in all categories

Bill Russell has the accolades but I think his lack of offense lets him down

David Robinson if he didnt get injured could've been a top 5, maybe even Alonzo. Not sure where I'd rank Ewing but Olajuwon, Chamberlain, Shaq & Kareem all fit in there.

I think its almost a lock (barring injuries) that Dwight is a top 5 center of all time by the time its all said and done. Where he ranks on that list is debatable.

TheStig · May 31, 2009

Dwight is good but he just doesn't play against the level of competition that was present in the 90's. There just aren't any other good centers. I mean outside of an aging shaq and often injured Yao (he only plays both twice a year each) what is the level of competition? There wasn't even a second allstar center in the east like there normally is. At this point I would say his career will be on par with Ewing or Zo. Both are very good centers, really control the defense but they are not elite on offense like Shaq or Hakeem or Kareem.

houheffna · May 31, 2009

Chamberlain, Kareem, Moses, Shaq, Hakeem....he will be more of a Shaq then Hakeem, but I would take Hakeem over Shaq any day myself...

If he develops Hakeem's low post abilities with his physicality, you might be talking GOAT, but that is a very big if.

Diddy1122 · May 31, 2009

dougthonus wrote:

Well P03 and I were discussing whether he'd be a top 5 center of all time or not, so I would suspect pretty seriously.

I was watching Game 6 last night with Jonathan Givony (DX), and asked him the same thing, and he thought he'd definitely rank above Hakeem before he was done. I think that's dicier, but I'm the king of disrespecting Bill Russell, so I said he'd easily pass Russell.

If Howard can win a few titles, I could see him possibly sneaking above The Dream on the Top centers list. But there's no way he easily passes Russell. In scoring, he will easily pass him, but Russell is in the top 3 all time and will never be passed imho. 11 championships, 5 MVP's, 12 All-Star appearances, holds the record for rebs/game in NBA Finals (29.5), second highest single game rebound total at 51. Bill Russell changed the face of the NBA center. Centers were not defensive stoppers until Russell came along.

Russell and Howard's games are actually pretty comparable, as they rely on their defense, rebounding, and strength to get their points. Howard is a much better athlete, but Russell's court smarts overcame any lack of athletic ability. This year when the Finals MVP is crowned, he will be hoisting up the Bill Russell Trophy.

clonetrooper264 · May 31, 2009

Dwight Howard will be one of the top 3 or 4 centers of all time for sure. I'm thinking that he can top Shaq and maybe even the Dream. There is no reason not to take Dwight seriously.

dougthonus · May 31, 2009

If Howard can win a few titles, I could see him possibly sneaking above The Dream on the Top centers list. But there's no way he easily passes Russell. In scoring, he will easily pass him, but Russell is in the top 3 all time and will never be passed imho. 11 championships, 5 MVP's, 12 All-Star appearances, holds the record for rebs/game in NBA Finals (29.5), second highest single game rebound total at 51. Bill Russell changed the face of the NBA center. Centers were not defensive stoppers until Russell came along.

Russell and Howard's games are actually pretty comparable, as they rely on their defense, rebounding, and strength to get their points. Howard is a much better athlete, but Russell's court smarts overcame any lack of athletic ability. This year when the Finals MVP is crowned, he will be hoisting up the Bill Russell Trophy.

Russell's championships are the most overrated achievement in sports:
1) There were few teams in the league. I'm not sure without looking, but I believe he won titles from 8 teams to 14 teams in the NBA.
2) There were few rounds in the playoffs, I believe it went from 1 round to 2 rounds.
3) He played with an average of five other hall of fame players on each team.
4) His rebounding statistics are purely a matter of the pace of the game much like all old stats, if you pace adjusted/minute adjust his rebound rate it's no longer spectacular relative to players of today.

houheffna · May 31, 2009

I think he is a bit overrated, but 11 championships are 11 championships. I think naming the Playoff MVP after him was a good move. None of the players back then would be as effective now. Oscar couldn't average a triple double for a season in today's NBA. But I think most people are feeling the same. Most people's top NBA teams list have the 80's Lakers and Celtics and that 1983 76ers team over any of the dynasty teams. There are a few other teams also seen as better also, including some of the Bulls teams. But he did win 11 championships, and that is a heck of an accomplishment.

Shakes · May 31, 2009

Leaving aside the stats though, can you really see Howard getting close to the 5 MVPs? LeBron looks like he's going to dominate the award over the next few years, so at best Howard might be able to sneak one when the voters are sick of LeBron.

I don't put a lot of weight on championships (because it depends so much on your team mates), but the MVPs have to count for something.

houheffna · May 31, 2009

I think Lebron gets a handful with Wade and Howard getting lifetime achievement MVP, like Barkley and Karl Malone. I believe that is what hurts Kobe's legacy...one MVP.

MADman24 · May 31, 2009

Shakes wrote:

Leaving aside the stats though, can you really see Howard getting close to the 5 MVPs? LeBron looks like he's going to dominate the award over the next few years, so at best Howard might be able to sneak one when the voters are sick of LeBron.

I don't put a lot of weight on championships (because it depends so much on your team mates), but the MVPs have to count for something.

MVP's don't mean that much either. Almost everyone includes Shaq in the top 10 all time yet he has merely one MVP and many have Kobe in the top 10 and he too has only one MVP.

Theoretically, and I don't think this will happen, Dwight could become the best center ever while LeBron is the best player ever and wins all or nearly all of the MVP awards during their careers. Furthermore, the MVP often goes to the best player on the best team and not best player that year or player who is most valuable to his team so it is not a knock as big as hit against a player as some make it seem.

CP3 might go his entire career without an MVP because of LeBron, Wade, and Dwight but that wouldn't make him less of a player for never being the best?

Diddy1122 · May 31, 2009

dougthonus wrote:

If Howard can win a few titles, I could see him possibly sneaking above The Dream on the Top centers list. But there's no way he easily passes Russell. In scoring, he will easily pass him, but Russell is in the top 3 all time and will never be passed imho. 11 championships, 5 MVP's, 12 All-Star appearances, holds the record for rebs/game in NBA Finals (29.5), second highest single game rebound total at 51. Bill Russell changed the face of the NBA center. Centers were not defensive stoppers until Russell came along.

Russell and Howard's games are actually pretty comparable, as they rely on their defense, rebounding, and strength to get their points. Howard is a much better athlete, but Russell's court smarts overcame any lack of athletic ability. This year when the Finals MVP is crowned, he will be hoisting up the Bill Russell Trophy.

Click to expand...

Russell's championships are the most overrated achievement in sports:
1) There were few teams in the league. I'm not sure without looking, but I believe he won titles from 8 teams to 14 teams in the NBA.
2) There were few rounds in the playoffs, I believe it went from 1 round to 2 rounds.
3) He played with an average of five other hall of fame players on each team.
4) His rebounding statistics are purely a matter of the pace of the game much like all old stats, if you pace adjusted/minute adjust his rebound rate it's no longer spectacular relative to players of today.

So by that respect, then Babe Ruth was not really that great of a ballplayer. There were fewer baseball teams, and games, and rounds of playoffs. And obviously, there wasn't PED's. Just because there are fewer teams does not take anything away from Russell's accomplishments. Not to mention, he was battling the best Lakers teams, talent wise, that were ever assembled. I won't argue that he played with great players, because he did, and he was not the primary offensive option, but if you're going to consider Russell's numbers irrelevant, then you would have to do the same for some of the HOFers he played with (i.e. KC Jones, Sam Jones, Heinsohn, heck even Havlicek to some extent). None of those guys have eye-popping numbers yet they are enshrined in Springfield, Mass. And these guys were routinely beating LA teams with Baylor, West, & Chamberlain.

People just don't realize or give respect to how Russell changed the face of the NBA center. Centers were primarily offensive weapons and defense was an afterthought. Russell completely changed that the second he stepped on the court. As for the pace of the game, it's faster than ever, so I don't really see where you're trying to go with that argument. Fast pace means more shots, and in turn more rebounds. Saying Russell's utter dominance on the glass was just a matter of the pace of the game in ridiculous, and an insult to the man himself. And an insult to all of the old-time players. Check out some of the old LA-Bos battels on ESPN classic, they're real eye openers.

MADman24 · May 31, 2009

Diddy1122 wrote:

So by that respect, then Babe Ruth was not really that great of a ballplayer.

Babe Ruth is the most overrated player ever in any of the 4 major sports and as far as athlete's he is even above Ali as most overrated athlete in history. If I had to pick Babe Ruth would probably be the most overrated person in their respective fields ranking above all time overhyped performers Elvis, Tupac, and fill in the blank here...

Baseball changed several important rules at the start of his career and after was barely the same sport. Babe Ruth debuted in the dead ball era, in which he fared similarly to other great power hitters of that time and was simply the 1st power hitter in the live-ball era.I could go on but I'll simply say Babe Ruth is the last person you want to evoke in a discussion of why someone else is good.

Russell's 11 championships are probably 2nd only to Babe Ruth's 715 homers as the most overrated accomplishment in sports. Early in the development process for pro sports leagues one team frequently dominates, i.e. the Houston Comets in the WNBA the Yankees in the beginning of the live-ball era or the Brooklyn Atlantics at the beginning of the MLB, but that in no way makes that team's best player one of the greats or better than others because that player, in this case, Russell was the benefactor of a great team when there were few contenders.

Saying Russell's utter dominance on the glass was just a matter of the pace of the game in ridiculous, and an insult to the man himself. And an insult to all of the old-time players. Check out some of the old LA-Bos battels on ESPN classic, they're real eye openers.

Your making all the wrong arguments here. I have watched several of those games and I'll tell you I, who has never played organized basketball, could have been a star in the league then. The more effective argument is that Russell was ahead of his time and skilled for his era but don't act as if that era players who would still be considered great today.

Shakes · May 31, 2009

MADman24 wrote:

Shakes wrote:

Leaving aside the stats though, can you really see Howard getting close to the 5 MVPs? LeBron looks like he's going to dominate the award over the next few years, so at best Howard might be able to sneak one when the voters are sick of LeBron.

I don't put a lot of weight on championships (because it depends so much on your team mates), but the MVPs have to count for something.

Click to expand...

MVP's don't mean that much either. Almost everyone includes Shaq in the top 10 all time yet he has merely one MVP and many have Kobe in the top 10 and he too has only one MVP.

Theoretically, and I don't think this will happen, Dwight could become the best center ever while LeBron is the best player ever and wins all or nearly all of the MVP awards during their careers. Furthermore, the MVP often goes to the best player on the best team and not best player that year or player who is most valuable to his team so it is not a knock as big as hit against a player as some make it seem.

CP3 might go his entire career without an MVP because of LeBron, Wade, and Dwight but that wouldn't make him less of a player for never being the best?

I'm not saying MVP voting is perfect. As you mention, Kobe has won one more than he deserves for his play.

Seriously though, the MVP award at least tells us something about how players were viewed compared to their contemporaries. Chris Paul, thus far in his career, hasn't ever been the best player in the league, so if he doesn't go on to win a MVP I'd say it's an entirely accurate picture of his career. Shaq only winning one is probably fair enough too, as good as he was when he was on the court, he also missed a lot of games which rightfully hurt him in the voting.

MADman24 · May 31, 2009

Shakes wrote:

I'm not saying MVP voting is perfect. As you mention, Kobe has won one more than he deserves for his play.

Seriously though, the MVP award at least tells us something about how players were viewed compared to their contemporaries. Chris Paul, thus far in his career, hasn't ever been the best player in the league, so if he doesn't go on to win a MVP I'd say it's an entirely accurate picture of his career. Shaq only winning one is probably fair enough too, as good as he was when he was on the court, he also missed a lot of games which rightfully hurt him in the voting.

Sure it has some significance now but I think the MVP would mean more, and I find this true of all leagues, if the players and coaches voted. Winning the MVP is almost as dependent on your teammates as winning a championship, many writers simply won't vote for anyone who's team is not one of the 3 or 4 best in the league. This is simply unfair to great players who don't have a bad supporting cast. But we can agree MVPs mean more than championships for an individual but I wouldn't say by much.

dougthonus · May 31, 2009

aying Russell's utter dominance on the glass was just a matter of the pace of the game in ridiculous, and an insult to the man himself.

I'm not going to respond to the rest of your argument because I consider it a philosophical difference where we won't change each other's minds. I feel the players in Russell's era were basically crap relative to today's players. You can only play against your era, so you can really on judge against who you go up against, even so, I don't see Russell as that dominant, and outside of Wilt who destroyed that era like no other, I don't know how much I credit anyone in it.

As for your rebounding argument, it's a joke. Take Russell's best rebounding season. He averaged 24.7 rebounds per game. His team averaged 71.7 rebounds per game. Russell played 93% of Boston's minutes, and thus his 24.7 rebounds per game were out of a possible 66.6 rebounds per game available (roughly assuming their rebound rate didn't change substantially in the other 7% of minutes played). Thus, he got 37% of his team's rebounds as best as we can estimate while on the court.

Howard averaged 13.8 rebounds per game this season. His team averaged 43 rebounds per game. When you factor that Howard played 35.7 minutes per game, he had an opportunity for 32 rebounds and got 43% of his teams rebounds. The only reason guys like Russell and Wilt had massive rebounding seasons back then are because the rebounds available were on average 60%-70% greater than to today and the players played nearly 90% of the minutes rather than 70-75% of them.

Diddy1122 · May 31, 2009

Yea Babe Ruth may have been overrated. Sure. But I'd say for a guy who was an alcoholic, and smoked upwards of 20 cigars a day, I'd say he accomplished some pretty amazing things.

People tend to think pioneers of sports are overrated simply because there weren't as many teams or games, I simply don't understand the rationale. They are the ones setting the records, paving the way for countless others to follow and break their those records, and that was my whole point with Russell. He was ahead of his time and changed the way the center position in the NBA was played. I said it several times and that's the main reason why he will always be in my Top 3.

dougthonus · May 31, 2009

People tend to think pioneers of sports are overrated simply because there weren't as many teams or games, I simply don't understand the rationale. They are the ones setting the records, paving the way for countless others to follow and break their those records, and that was my whole point with Russell. He was ahead of his time and changed the way the center position in the NBA was played. I said it several times and that's the main reason why he will always be in my Top 3.

Sports pioneers are highly overrated. When people play in weak eras where the sport doesn't have much backing or talent the people who are legit in their era stand out FAR more than they would in other eras simply because they are so much better then their level of competition.

It's infinitely more difficult for someone else in a prime era to stand out by that amount. For example, my IQ has been tested between 132-154. If I'm in a town with say 20 kids my age. The odds of me being vastly more intelligent than the other 19 kids are extremely high. I might be the smartest kid in the town for 2 decades and appear to have absolutely dominant intelligence.

I went to a high school with a class size of 500, and while I was probably in the top 1-2% of my class intelligence wise I definitely wasn't the smartest kid and there were probably 10 or so people in my class around the same level. There were probably that many kids every year around the same level as well. I was always considered smart, but no one would have said I was once in a generation smart in my actual sample of kids.

That's what's going on with guys like Russell and Chamberlain. Do you want to credit them for being pioneers? I guess that's fine, but it's not like they invented the game or that the NBA was the original basketball league or anything.

TheStig · May 31, 2009

dougthonus wrote:

aying Russell's utter dominance on the glass was just a matter of the pace of the game in ridiculous, and an insult to the man himself.

Click to expand...

I'm not going to respond to the rest of your argument because I consider it a philosophical difference where we won't change each other's minds. I feel the players in Russell's era were basically crap relative to today's players. You can only play against your era, so you can really on judge against who you go up against, even so, I don't see Russell as that dominant, and outside of Wilt who destroyed that era like no other, I don't know how much I credit anyone in it.

As for your rebounding argument, it's a joke. Take Russell's best rebounding season. He averaged 24.7 rebounds per game. His team averaged 71.7 rebounds per game. Russell played 93% of Boston's minutes, and thus his 24.7 rebounds per game were out of a possible 66.6 rebounds per game available (roughly assuming their rebound rate didn't change substantially in the other 7% of minutes played). Thus, he got 37% of his team's rebounds as best as we can estimate while on the court.

Howard averaged 13.8 rebounds per game this season. His team averaged 43 rebounds per game. When you factor that Howard played 35.7 minutes per game, he had an opportunity for 32 rebounds and got 43% of his teams rebounds. The only reason guys like Russell and Wilt had massive rebounding seasons back then are because the rebounds available were on average 60%-70% greater than to today and the players played nearly 90% of the minutes rather than 70-75% of them.

I think you guys are overrating Howard a bit and are jumping the gun in calling him top 5 all time. Howards rebounding rate is also inflated due to the fact that everyone else on his team averaged less than 6rpg. I am not going to try to compare Russel to Howard but that same year you cited for Russel he played with two other guys who got more than 5rpg, so despite having a lower rate he was playing with better rebounders and not wing players.

Dwight Howard

New member

New member

New member

New member

Ignoring Idiots

I ain't your pal dickface

Retired Bandwagon Mod

My favorite teams

New member

Ignoring Idiots

Iconoclast

Ignoring Idiots

New member

I ain't your pal dickface

New member

Iconoclast

New member

New member

I ain't your pal dickface

New member

New member