PDA

View Full Version : Three new NBA Rule changes for 2018-2019 possibly added



FlashBolt
08-23-2018, 01:04 PM
ESPN Sources: NBA's Competition Committee recommending rule changes for 2018-19 season that include: reset of shot clock to 14 seconds after offensive rebound; simplification of clear-path foul rule; expanding definition of "hostile act" for purposes of triggering replay.

Resetting of shot clock to 14 seconds is a huge change - especially when games are close and comes down to the final minute.

Rivera
08-23-2018, 01:08 PM
after an offensive rebound? ooo that is harsh but in a weird way I like it, im not totally against it

FlashBolt
08-23-2018, 01:19 PM
after an offensive rebound? ooo that is harsh but in a weird way I like it, im not totally against it

There's only about ten offensive rebounds per team in a game so this would shave 1 minute and 40 seconds. I can see it being a huge game changer in a close game.

Ex: Red team down 2 points, blue team has the ball with 50 seconds left. Blue team takes a shot at 27 seconds left, get the offensive rebound, and take a shot at 14 seconds left. Gives the red team 13 seconds wheras it would be only 2 seconds left under the 24 second shotclock. I think this is the ultimate reason they made this change and that's to account for the three point shooting and giving enough of an opportuntity for teams to come back and try to win.

ChiTownPacerFan
08-23-2018, 06:06 PM
The NBA still refuses to address the issue of jumpshooters erratically veering into defenders to draw a foul. It happens all the time and it's not a basketball move. Should be an offense foul every time
I wouldn't it being a tech too.

ewing
08-23-2018, 06:47 PM
The offensive rebound thing is redic. the game is plenty fast and the rules already reward one dominate style of play. I really don't see the need for clarification on clear path but I'd have to see what they do. Replay needs to be scrapped with exception of buzzer beaters and the 3 point line not expanded

IndyRealist
08-23-2018, 07:31 PM
The NBA trying to put the nail in the coffin of the NBA big man.

FlashBolt
08-23-2018, 07:34 PM
The NBA still refuses to address the issue of jumpshooters erratically veering into defenders to draw a foul. It happens all the time and it's not a basketball move. Should be an offense foul every time
I wouldn't it being a tech too.
I think that's been clarified a bit during the season. Most refs aren't calling it as much. The problem is it is so difficult to determine real-time if they leaned into it or if the other player truly did foul them regardless of the player leaning into them. It's a tough call to make these days for the refs.

Scoots
08-23-2018, 11:35 PM
The NBA trying to put the nail in the coffin of the NBA big man.

The shorter clock actually encourages them to keep it and try to score a little more than pass it out and reset the offense.

ewing
08-24-2018, 05:32 AM
The shorter clock actually encourages them to keep it and try to score a little more than pass it out and reset the offense.


Team already don't send guys to the offensive glass and largely have abandoned taking the time to organize and post a big. Encouraging quick shots is not to the benefit of a more traditional big.

Scoots
08-24-2018, 09:12 AM
Team already don't send guys to the offensive glass and largely have abandoned taking the time to organize and post a big. Encouraging quick shots is not to the benefit of a more traditional big.

14 seconds does not mean a quick shot.

IndyRealist
08-24-2018, 10:02 AM
The shorter clock actually encourages them to keep it and try to score a little more than pass it out and reset the offense.

Giving less time devalues the offensive rebound, plain and simple. It may not be this rule change, but at some point it won't be worth playing big men at all and they'll all be replaced with 6'9" wing players.

mightybosstone
08-24-2018, 10:09 AM
I'm fine with the 14-second rule change in that there will be fewer automatic fouls and more attempts at legitimate shots late in games. It's just going to suck the first time this screws the Rockets out of a win in a game they otherwise would have won with the previous rule. That day I will absolute curse this rule...

I don't think it will have some huge impact on big men like some are suggesting in this thread. Getting an offensive rebound is still the equivalent of getting an extra possession; that possession is just a little shorter. Also, this will really only matter in the last minute or so of every quarter. And you could argue that with less time on the shot clock, having a big man with the ball already in his hands down low, the best shot in that shorter possession is probably a put back around the rim, which might give that offensive rebounder added value.

IndyRealist
08-24-2018, 10:23 AM
I'm fine with the 14-second rule change in that there will be fewer automatic fouls and more attempts at legitimate shots late in games. It's just going to suck the first time this screws the Rockets out of a win in a game they otherwise would have won with the previous rule. That day I will absolute curse this rule...

I don't think it will have some huge impact on big men like some are suggesting in this thread. Getting an offensive rebound is still the equivalent of getting an extra possession; that possession is just a little shorter. Also, this will really only matter in the last minute or so of every quarter. And you could argue that with less time on the shot clock, having a big man with the ball already in his hands down low, the best shot in that shorter possession is probably a put back around the rim, which might give that offensive rebounder added value.

A 14 second shot clock is worth substantially less than a full possession. You acknowledge that there's no time to run a play and the best shot may be just to put it back up, so it's obviously worth less than a full possession because you can't run a full play.

14 seconds likely comes from the clock reset on kicked balls, and that time comes from the old halfcourt 10 second rule. Essentially, if we're going to give you the ball out of bounds because of the kick, on this side of the halfcourt line, we're going to deduct the time you would have taken to get it across halfcourt. The two problems with that is that 1) it's no longer 10 seconds, it's 8 seconds to get across the halfcourt line. 2) On an offensive rebound the clock is live. On a kick the offense has time to get players where they want because the clock is stopped. Those are not equivalent situations.

The logic is that a kicked ball is the equivalent of a full possession, because of the halfcourt line. So, for an offensive rebound to be the equivalent, you have to get the rebound PLUS take a timeout. Thus an offensive rebound is worth substantially less than a full possession.

kdspurman
08-24-2018, 10:25 AM
14 seconds does not mean a quick shot.

It could, if the offensive board is in a crowd and it takes a few seconds to get the ball back up top to reset, or something to that affect. Could lose 2-3 seconds, plus trying to get a good shot up with 1-3 seconds left. Some cases you could be looking at really like 8 seconds to get a shot up.

Which is probably enough time for some teams, but I could see it being a little rushed at times. While the quantity of shots/attempts will go up, gotta wonder what the quality will be like.

warfelg
08-24-2018, 10:34 AM
I'm glad they're going to work on the clear path rule.

mightybosstone
08-24-2018, 10:53 AM
A 14 second shot clock is worth substantially less than a full possession. You acknowledge that there's no time to run a play and the best shot may be just to put it back up, so it's obviously worth less than a full possession because you can't run a full play.

14 seconds likely comes from the clock reset on kicked balls, and that time comes from the old halfcourt 10 second rule. Essentially, if we're going to give you the ball out of bounds because of the kick, on this side of the halfcourt line, we're going to deduct the time you would have taken to get it across halfcourt. The two problems with that is that 1) it's no longer 10 seconds, it's 8 seconds to get across the halfcourt line. 2) On an offensive rebound the clock is live. On a kick the offense has time to get players where they want because the clock is stopped. Those are not equivalent situations.

The logic is that a kicked ball is the equivalent of a full possession, because of the halfcourt line. So, for an offensive rebound to be the equivalent, you have to get the rebound PLUS take a timeout. Thus an offensive rebound is worth substantially less than a full possession.

I never debated that it was less than a full possession. But 14 seconds is still enough time to get up a decent shot late in a game, and it will prevent teams from holding the ball late in games and limit the number of forced fouls. Also, I still don't understand your logic on how this is some huge detriment to big men in the NBA. If you miss a shot, you still want to get the offensive rebound, regardless of whether you have 24 or 14 seconds on the clock at that point. And an offensive put back is still one of the highest percentage shots you can take.

Does the rule hurt the value of an offensive rebound late in games? Yes. Does it somehow devalue big men? Not at all.

ewing
08-24-2018, 11:06 AM
14 seconds does not mean a quick shot.

You’re annoying


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

colinskik
08-24-2018, 11:35 AM
Bring back the traveling call. For real tho.

IndyRealist
08-24-2018, 12:06 PM
I never debated that it was less than a full possession. But 14 seconds is still enough time to get up a decent shot late in a game, and it will prevent teams from holding the ball late in games and limit the number of forced fouls. Also, I still don't understand your logic on how this is some huge detriment to big men in the NBA. If you miss a shot, you still want to get the offensive rebound, regardless of whether you have 24 or 14 seconds on the clock at that point. And an offensive put back is still one of the highest percentage shots you can take.

Does the rule hurt the value of an offensive rebound late in games? Yes. Does it somehow devalue big men? Not at all.

Because having a big man eventually will be a liability vs. having a 6'9" wing who shoots 3s. With no post game anymore, no camping the paint, and people realizing the marginal value of blocks, the last major value bigs provide is offensive rebounds. We've already seen the PF disappear due to rules changes. It's only a matter of time before every team is playing no one taller than 6'9" except the odd KD type player.

ChongInc.
08-24-2018, 02:24 PM
Shot clock should only ever be 20 seconds.

Scoots
08-24-2018, 07:21 PM
You’re annoying

You are adorable. Thank you friend!

FlashBolt
08-24-2018, 07:31 PM
Because having a big man eventually will be a liability vs. having a 6'9" wing who shoots 3s. With no post game anymore, no camping the paint, and people realizing the marginal value of blocks, the last major value bigs provide is offensive rebounds. We've already seen the PF disappear due to rules changes. It's only a matter of time before every team is playing no one taller than 6'9" except the odd KD type player.
Big men have been making a comeback. It's part of the game to have these changes when rules are made. Cousins, Embiid, Jokic, Gobert, DeAndre Jordan, etc., it's a league with very good centers so I think you're not giving enough credit to the centers of today.

mightybosstone
08-24-2018, 07:43 PM
Because having a big man eventually will be a liability vs. having a 6'9" wing who shoots 3s. With no post game anymore, no camping the paint, and people realizing the marginal value of blocks, the last major value bigs provide is offensive rebounds. We've already seen the PF disappear due to rules changes. It's only a matter of time before every team is playing no one taller than 6'9" except the odd KD type player.

As long as there are players looking to drive the lane to score around the rim, there will be a need for taller players to defend the paint and crash the glass. That's not going away anytime soon.

IndyRealist
08-24-2018, 08:05 PM
Big men have been making a comeback. It's part of the game to have these changes when rules are made. Cousins, Embiid, Jokic, Gobert, DeAndre Jordan, etc., it's a league with very good centers so I think you're not giving enough credit to the centers of today.

Notice that no longer includes power forwards, because the NBA legislated them out of the game. Now there's only one real big on the floor. When New Orleans put Cousins and Davis on the floor together, everyone was like "Will it work?!" That's how rare two bigs are these days.

I've been hearing "Big men are making a comeback" for like a decade now. What championship caliber team has a big as their highest paid player?

IndyRealist
08-24-2018, 08:14 PM
As long as there are players looking to drive the lane to score around the rim, there will be a need for taller players to defend the paint and crash the glass. That's not going away anytime soon.

"Taller" is relative. It's just as important for bigs these days to be able to switch on screens and pick up guys on the perimeter. That requires smaller, less bulky players to stay in front of quick guards. Clint Capella is 6'9". If they keep changing rules, that's going to become the norm. At some point, guys like Otto Porter may be playing center.

ewing
08-24-2018, 08:59 PM
As long as there are players looking to drive the lane to score around the rim, there will be a need for taller players to defend the paint and crash the glass. That's not going away anytime soon.

Its already going away. Remember when you couldn’t get away with playing KG at the 5 and you needed a goon like Dampier to cover for Dirk?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

TheMightyHumph
08-24-2018, 09:27 PM
I don't know. That's treating a offensive rebound like it;s a kicked ball.

It's a new possession. Wht shouldn't they be able to pass it out and set up the offense again?

TheMightyHumph
08-24-2018, 09:30 PM
The post game is alive. The post player just has to be able to pass out of the post.

FlashBolt
08-25-2018, 05:25 PM
Notice that no longer includes power forwards, because the NBA legislated them out of the game. Now there's only one real big on the floor. When New Orleans put Cousins and Davis on the floor together, everyone was like "Will it work?!" That's how rare two bigs are these days.

I've been hearing "Big men are making a comeback" for like a decade now. What championship caliber team has a big as their highest paid player?

1) Why would it include power forwards if you were talking about players 6'9 and above - which usually are centers? Yes, the PF position has declined but that's mainly due to the fact that smaller lineups are being used and that's where more versatile PF's come in and can help fill that gap. Having a dominant center in your front line is still very valuable. The Cousins and Davis experiment was questionable because of DeMarcus Cousins attitude. They weren't sure just how much he'd be willing to sacrifice being the 2nd option and because he's received a history of criticism due to his own behavior.

2) Define championship caliber team because really, outside of the Warriors, you have just really good teams next in line. No other team is really a championship caliber squad.

Celtics: Al Horford is paid handsomely.
Philly: Embiid will be the highest paid player on his team.

and the rest, well, there's just not many contenders out there. Gobert is a beast but he's not on a championship contender. He will get paid max if he can keep it up. Jokic is the best player on the Nuggets by far. Also will be the highest paid player very soon after Milsap is gone. DeAndre Jordan is the 2nd highest paid player on the Mavericks. Cousins, well, we all know what his situation is because he would definitely have been able to secure a very nice contract.

See, I don't think the center position will be as easy to get rid of as much as the PF. We've seen some insanely versatile PF's over the years and guys like Kevin Durant, Giannis, etc., are freakish generational players so to say those guys who can play numerous positions will take over the PF position IMO, is an overreaction. Not everyone is 6'10-7 ft and capable of handling the ball/has the wingspan of Durant and Giannis. There are still some quality PF's in the game such as Love, KP, LaMarcus, Blake Griffin, and Draymond. The center position will be more difficult to replace because there is a noticeable size difference. Kevin Durant is tall and lengthy but he would not be able to guard the center position if a team decides to go big.

FlashBolt
08-25-2018, 05:29 PM
The post game is alive. The post player just has to be able to pass out of the post.

Yup. The game has changed but it doesn't mean the post game has to disappear just because teams are shooting more threes and playing more small ball. No one will likely beat the Warriors like that, anyways. A dominant center in the low post can cause problems and Embiid has done a great job in destroying the narrative that centers will fall back into irrelevancy. Ayton also has some potential and Bamba can be a defensive force. Once more centers get back into the game, other teams are forced to counter with their own. It's a cycle at this point and all it takes is a few teams to start dominating with their center.

EthanHarris
08-25-2018, 05:36 PM
As long as there are players looking to drive the lane to score around the rim, there will be a need for taller players to defend the paint and crash the glass. That's not going away anytime soon.

Agree. The centers are here to stay!

IndyRealist
08-25-2018, 06:19 PM
1) Why would it include power forwards if you were talking about players 6'9 and above - which usually are centers? Yes, the PF position has declined but that's mainly due to the fact that smaller lineups are being used and that's where more versatile PF's come in and can help fill that gap. Having a dominant center in your front line is still very valuable. The Cousins and Davis experiment was questionable because of DeMarcus Cousins attitude. They weren't sure just how much he'd be willing to sacrifice being the 2nd option and because he's received a history of criticism due to his own behavior.

2) Define championship caliber team because really, outside of the Warriors, you have just really good teams next in line. No other team is really a championship caliber squad.

Celtics: Al Horford is paid handsomely.
Philly: Embiid will be the highest paid player on his team.

and the rest, well, there's just not many contenders out there. Gobert is a beast but he's not on a championship contender. He will get paid max if he can keep it up. Jokic is the best player on the Nuggets by far. Also will be the highest paid player very soon after Milsap is gone. DeAndre Jordan is the 2nd highest paid player on the Mavericks. Cousins, well, we all know what his situation is because he would definitely have been able to secure a very nice contract.

See, I don't think the center position will be as easy to get rid of as much as the PF. We've seen some insanely versatile PF's over the years and guys like Kevin Durant, Giannis, etc., are freakish generational players so to say those guys who can play numerous positions will take over the PF position IMO, is an overreaction. Not everyone is 6'10-7 ft and capable of handling the ball/has the wingspan of Durant and Giannis. There are still some quality PF's in the game such as Love, KP, LaMarcus, Blake Griffin, and Draymond. The center position will be more difficult to replace because there is a noticeable size difference. Kevin Durant is tall and lengthy but he would not be able to guard the center position if a team decides to go big.

1) Only NOW is above 6'9" considered centers. 10 years ago 6'9" was considered undersized for PF. Smaller lineups are being used, to switch on PnR and to provide outside shooting, because those things have become more valuable than post defense, rebounding, and shot blocking. Cousins and Davis was 100% about whether you could have two traditional bigs in the same lineup, if there was enough floor spacing, etc. I don't recall anyone mentioning anything about attitude. Yes, having a dominant center is valuable. And there will always be centers that are better than others. But the way rule changes are going those centers will be shooting 3s and rebounding substantially less, because it'll be more valuable to have them at the 3pt line than in the paint.

2) Al Horford is not the Celtics highest paid player. He is the not the piece they built around. It simply looked that way because Gordon Hayward was injured. Embiid is the Sixers highest paid, yes. But that's because of their draft-build strategy. As soon as he's eligible, Simmons will be making more.

I never said anything about KD being a generational talent, or playing multiple positions. He's a 7fter who can shoot. That's the type of players over 6'9" the NBA will pursue, and what high school and college will train players to be. Guys like Channing Frye, Rashard Lewis, will become the norm instead of the exception. That's essentially how Kristaps Porzingas and Myles Turner both play.

Scoots
08-25-2018, 10:21 PM
1) Only NOW is above 6'9" considered centers. 10 years ago 6'9" was considered undersized for PF.

There have been several 6'9" and shorter centers before now. 10 years ago the top minute players at PF were around 6'9" including Antawn Jameson, Rashard Lewis, Josh Smith, Carlos Boozer, David West, David Lee. The only big minute outliers were LMA and Dirk and both of them got a lot of minutes at center that year. Also starting at PF that year were Ryan Gomes, Gerrald Wallace, Mikki Moore, and Shawn Marion all 6'7".

IndyRealist
08-25-2018, 10:30 PM
There have been several 6'9" and shorter centers before now. 10 years ago the top minute players at PF were around 6'9" including Antawn Jameson, Rashard Lewis, Josh Smith, Carlos Boozer, David West, David Lee. The only big minute outliers were LMA and Dirk and both of them got a lot of minutes at center that year. Also starting at PF that year were Ryan Gomes, Gerrald Wallace, Mikki Moore, and Shawn Marion all 6'7".

Looking back at the 2008 draft class, Michael Beasley was a SF/PF, then we had Kevin Love, Jason Thompson, Anthony Randolph, and Marreese Speights before we get JJ Hickson as a listed 6'9" PF at #19. Not a single 6'8" PF drafted in either round. Shrug.

Scoots
08-26-2018, 08:24 AM
Looking back at the 2008 draft class, Michael Beasley was a SF/PF, then we had Kevin Love, Jason Thompson, Anthony Randolph, and Marreese Speights before we get JJ Hickson as a listed 6'9" PF at #19. Not a single 6'8" PF drafted in either round. Shrug.

I was looking at active players rather than the draft ... the top 3 minutes guys at PF out of that draft were Love, Ibaka, and Ryan Anderson, from that it's pretty clear outside shooting and not size was a priority after that draft, and all three of them were around 6'9". The top minute getter at PF in the 2007 draft was Thad Young at 6'8" with Carl Landry, Glen Davis, and Jared Dudley, all at or below 6'9".

I think the 6'9" being seen as small for PF was never true. There have been great PFs who were taller than 6'9" for sure like Duncan, Garnett, Dirk (though all 3 were kind of out of position based on their skill sets), there were also a lot of greats 6'9" and below like Barkley, Hayes, Lucas, Malone, Pettit, Schayes, and Webber. Barkley is clearly an outlier.

Considering Durant was playing SG back then the positionless ball we are seeing now was being played with 10 years ago, it just wasn't as widespread as it is now.

IndyRealist
08-26-2018, 08:43 AM
I was looking at active players rather than the draft ... the top 3 minutes guys at PF out of that draft were Love, Ibaka, and Ryan Anderson, from that it's pretty clear outside shooting and not size was a priority after that draft, and all three of them were around 6'9". The top minute getter at PF in the 2007 draft was Thad Young at 6'8" with Carl Landry, Glen Davis, and Jared Dudley, all at or below 6'9".

I think the 6'9" being seen as small for PF was never true. There have been great PFs who were taller than 6'9" for sure like Duncan, Garnett, Dirk (though all 3 were kind of out of position based on their skill sets), there were also a lot of greats 6'9" and below like Barkley, Hayes, Lucas, Malone, Pettit, Schayes, and Webber. Barkley is clearly an outlier.

Considering Durant was playing SG back then the positionless ball we are seeing now was being played with 10 years ago, it just wasn't as widespread as it is now.

In 2006 both Tyrus Thomas and Shelden Williams were called undersized at PF at 6'8". I think that's more of the cut off I'm referring to.

http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Tyrus-Thomas-511/
http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Shelden-Williams-18/

Scoots
08-26-2018, 09:02 AM
In 2006 both Tyrus Thomas and Shelden Williams were called undersized at PF at 6'8". I think that's more of the cut off I'm referring to.

http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Tyrus-Thomas-511/
http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Shelden-Williams-18/

Yeah, 6'8" I would agree with. 6'10" for 5, 6'8" for 4, 6'6" for 3, 6'3" for 2, 6'1" for 1 ... or something like that.

warfelg
08-26-2018, 09:04 AM
I don't get what the height of players has to do with the rules changes. PF's have almost always been in that 6'7" - 6'10" range. :shrug:

Still no one wants to talk about the changes of the clear path and how that's going to do more to open up the game than anything else?

Heediot
08-26-2018, 09:27 AM
I like the 14 second off-rebound rule. It's pretty standard in every other league.

For techs, I would prefer they give both a FT and possession.

I think the transition fouls are making it closer to what they have going on with fiba in this department.

IndyRealist
08-26-2018, 11:10 AM
I don't get what the height of players has to do with the rules changes. PF's have almost always been in that 6'7" - 6'10" range. :shrug:

Still no one wants to talk about the changes of the clear path and how that's going to do more to open up the game than anything else?

The height thing was a tangent. I haven't said anything about the clear path rule because they didn't explain how they're changing it.

Scoots
08-26-2018, 11:33 AM
The height thing was a tangent. I haven't said anything about the clear path rule because they didn't explain how they're changing it.

Agreed. Thus far the changes don't seem like a big deal.

nastynice
08-26-2018, 01:25 PM
I'm glad they're going to work on the clear path rule.

X2.

14 Second rule is dumb

Addressing flopiness should have been a bigger overall priority

ChongInc.
08-26-2018, 01:32 PM
At least the shot clock will actually be enforced. They need to start enforcing the other rules before changing them.

Scoots
08-26-2018, 02:09 PM
Add refs, remove most replay, remove the 2 minute reivew, don't bail out offensive players who create contact.

Raps08-09 Champ
08-26-2018, 06:52 PM
They need to use FIBA rules for basketball interference. This will make big men much more relevant.

warfelg
08-26-2018, 06:54 PM
They need to use FIBA rules for basketball interference. This will make big men much more relevant.

This.

Also, adding more refs will mean more chances to fix games.

kobebabe
08-27-2018, 09:00 AM
I like the 14 sec rule. Will make the end of game a nail bitter for sure and give everyone a good shot at winning a close game.

How about extend the 3 point line back? It has become so ridiculously easy for most guys.
This would incorporate big man better As the game moves from constant 3 point plays. What do you guys think?

Scoots
08-27-2018, 09:20 AM
This.

Also, adding more refs will mean more chances to fix games.

By that logic would removing refs make it harder to fix games? It seems to me that if there was one ref then it would only take getting to one guy to completely change the game. If there were say 6 refs one ref would struggle to fix the game as much.

Scoots
08-27-2018, 09:21 AM
They need to use FIBA rules for basketball interference. This will make big men much more relevant.

That sounds good to me.

FlashBolt
08-28-2018, 04:13 PM
1) Only NOW is above 6'9" considered centers. 10 years ago 6'9" was considered undersized for PF. Smaller lineups are being used, to switch on PnR and to provide outside shooting, because those things have become more valuable than post defense, rebounding, and shot blocking. Cousins and Davis was 100% about whether you could have two traditional bigs in the same lineup, if there was enough floor spacing, etc. I don't recall anyone mentioning anything about attitude. Yes, having a dominant center is valuable. And there will always be centers that are better than others. But the way rule changes are going those centers will be shooting 3s and rebounding substantially less, because it'll be more valuable to have them at the 3pt line than in the paint.

2) Al Horford is not the Celtics highest paid player. He is the not the piece they built around. It simply looked that way because Gordon Hayward was injured. Embiid is the Sixers highest paid, yes. But that's because of their draft-build strategy. As soon as he's eligible, Simmons will be making more.

I never said anything about KD being a generational talent, or playing multiple positions. He's a 7fter who can shoot. That's the type of players over 6'9" the NBA will pursue, and what high school and college will train players to be. Guys like Channing Frye, Rashard Lewis, will become the norm instead of the exception. That's essentially how Kristaps Porzingas and Myles Turner both play.

Lol. If we're going to argue that a less than $3 million difference in Horford/Hayward's contract doesn't qualify Horford as being a top paid player on a team, then you're just looking to find every potential argument. Horford is paid as a top player, period. Whether his teammate makes more than him is irrelevant, really, because the entire point of this is how much they get paid and Horford gets paid a lot as a "center." Your initial point was: Which team has a center as their highest paid player. At that time, Horford WAS their highest paid player and he is a center. There is no more discussion to be had in regards to this.

Like I said, I disagree with you that centers are becoming more obsolete. The fact is, centers still do an elite job at rebounding the ball. In fact, they do a better job. Compare the rebounding numbers of centers of today vs 10-15 years ago. There are more opportunities for them to rebound the ball as well because the game has sped up. The courts open up more shots because of the constant moving/floor spacing. Centers are very valuable and will always have a role in the game. Developing a three pointer for a center is immensely valuable so the notion that having them sit at the three point line somehow devaluing their role at the paint is false. Why do you think Embiid is getting so much attention despite always being injured? Because if he's fully healthy, his value as a center in floor spacing, rebounding, defense, and paint dominance is simply undeniable.