clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Could the lack of Bogut in game 6 point to Drummond's strengths?

New, comments

Bogut was out but Draymond was back. A surefire win for small ball and the future of the NBA. Not so fast ...

Kyle Terada-USA TODAY Sports

The Pistons have largely, in both a literal and figurative sense, based their future on a very large player in Andre Drummond. But does that plan still make sense in the midst of the "small ball revolution" led by the Golden State Warriors, powered by one-time small forward Draymond Green acting as the defacto center of the Warrior's most deadly lineup.

All of the pundits assumed that when Steve Kerr finally, through circumstance, had to start his "Line up of Death" because of traditional center Andrew Bogut's injury, the Warriors would annihilate the Cleveland Cavaliers. Well, that didn't happen. The death of big men, it appears, might have been greatly exaggerated.

For years now there has been a notion that "traditional" centers were becoming a thing of the past. Shooting, speed, agility and switchability mattered above all else. But what happens when the quintessential small ball lineup falls flat on its face? That's exactly what happened to Golden State in quarter one of game 6. And it begs the question: is small ball overrated?

Could a team with a truly old school big man become the best team in basketball? That's where Drummond comes into play. Stan Van Gundy and crew are essentially betting that Drummond and "big ball' are here to stay. Van Gundy doubled down on the approach bringing in two traditional centers as reserves in Aron Baynes and Joel Anthony. The Pistons will also sign Drummond to a max contract this offseason, going with a traditional five in Drummond like Van Gundy did with Dwight Howard and Shaq before him.

What do you think? Can the Pistons rise to championship level with a traditional center or does SVG need to get with the times and go small ball and forgo signing Drum? If so, what next?