SupremeCommander wrote:this is a no brainer - Chandler. The Heat won a championship without a true center. Chandler can guard every position on the floor. At his best he is a great defender of every position on the court. Plus, Howard is a little whiny spoiled child

nykshaknbake wrote:When Chandler switches onto a guard its always a layup. Not a knock on him as what center can keep up, but the statement isn't true.

SupremeCommander wrote:this is a no brainer - Chandler. The Heat won a championship without a true center. Chandler can guard every position on the floor. At his best he is a great defender of every position on the court. Plus, Howard is a little whiny spoiled child

it's certainly true in the half court set when the defense is set. I think when the team gets a caught off guard defensively to the point where Chandler has to switch on a guard is a poor example for you to point to

nykshaknbake wrote:He led his team to the finals, whereas Chandler was 2nd or 3rd bananna on his championship team. He an enormous crybaby, but he's been a defensive beast throughout his career and he commands a triple team in the post.

blkexec wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:M D A

blkexec wrote:

fishmike wrote:total Knick homerism, and thats fine. Unless folks think Dwight is broken and his body wont be the same (like post-Pho Amare) then its Dwight and its not debatable. You cant build a team around Chandler. Dwight you put average NBA talent and your winning 50 games a year and going to the 2nd round every year.

Cmon folks. Dwight may be a tool but he comes back healthy he's the best big in the NBA since Shaq

If Dwight is that good, why did the Lakers suck? Thats the best talent Dwight will ever play with in his entire career. If he's that good, the Lakers wouldn't be such a laughing stock. And this was before Kobe's injury. Dwight clearly showed how overrated he is.

I probably dislike MDA more than you. But if we are crowning Dwight Howard the king of all centers. The best big man to play in the NBA in this era, then I don't care if the Lakers were coached by bugs bunny.

Put any great NBA player / center on that team and you would have a different outcome.

What everybody doesn't understand about players like Chandler, is that he understands his limitations, understands his role, and plays his role to the best. By the way, he has leadership qualities that makes other players follow. Dwight is not there yet. So I can't crown him with anything, other than potential. Of course he's a physical beast, but thats only part of the equation that makes a player great. I'm still waiting for the other part(s)....

He couldn't lead the Lakers.....Even with their injuries, they were still better than the cast Dwight had in Orlando that he led to the finals.

Dwight hasn't matured yet. Until he becomes a mature mentally strong individual, we can start comparing. Right now, he's a high risk / high reqard player if you plan on paying him max money.

gunsnewing wrote:And tyson is not much of a ft shooter either and gets to the line far less than dwight

But you don't see a "hack a Chandler" strategy in the 4th quarter.

And for the most part, when I watch Chandler, he seems like he makes most of his free throw attempts. Eventhough his stats says otherwise.

When Dwight was in Orlando, it would be a no brainer to pick Dwight over Chandler.

The fact that I have to give it some thought, or how a thread was created on this subject, says a lot about Dwights falling stock.

I still find it troubling that you can't even play your star MAX player in crunch time due to poor free throw shooting.....

gunsnewing wrote:And tyson is not much of a ft shooter either and gets to the line far less than dwight

gunsnewing wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

technomaster wrote:If it came down to it, I'd rather have Howard. Post-back surgery, his game really started coming together in the 2nd half. He's pretty much superior at all aspects of the game EXCEPT for FT%.

Tyson's FG% was .060 higher, FT% was about .200 points higher, and assist:turnover ratio was much better. The only real advantage Howard had was blocked shots and perhaps PPG (although his scoring was much less efficient).

Because he scores in a variety of ways not just alley oops from felton

If he's much less efficient, he's not helping the team though; he's just inflating his PPG (which will make him more popular).

The net difference per 36 min between the two is
Howard +2.0 FG out of +4.1 FGA (meaning Howard takes 4.1 more shots and makes 2.0 per 36 min) and
Howard +1.7 FT out of +5.2 FTA
Assuming all of those FGs are 2 pointers, the net difference equates to a .446 TS%, which is almost .100 points below the league average. Basically, in the extra possessions Dwight uses up, he is VERY inefficient. You could give those extra possessions to a top NBDL level player and he'd probably be more efficient. You could say Dwights' versatility somehow helps the team even if it doesn't show up in his individual stats, but I don't see any evidence of that. None of the Lakers players had particularly impressive years and their W-L record was unimpressive. To compensate for the bad efficiency, Dwight would have to be *substantially* not just slightly elevating his teammates in ways that don't show up in his stat line. To be clear, I'm not saying Dwight overall is an inefficient scorer. Rather, the difference between Tyson and Dwight is just lots of inefficient offense from Dwight.

(This is also ignoring the advantage in offensive rebounding that Tyson has.)

tj23 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

technomaster wrote:If it came down to it, I'd rather have Howard. Post-back surgery, his game really started coming together in the 2nd half. He's pretty much superior at all aspects of the game EXCEPT for FT%.

Tyson's FG% was .060 higher, FT% was about .200 points higher, and assist:turnover ratio was much better. The only real advantage Howard had was blocked shots and perhaps PPG (although his scoring was much less efficient).

Less efficient? Didnt dwight lead the league in field goal percentage??