The supposedly unconventional belief that 'size doesn't matter' has become so normal these days that it isn't even questioned. Sure, we laud players like Kevin Durant for their wing-spans, and players like Yao Ming for their heights, and players like LBJ for their physiques, but we never linger on the shortness of Michael Beasley or Allen Iverson. We congratulate them for succeeding in spite of their physical deficiencies while ignoring the myriad problems that persist *because* of those deficiencies. Height is very important in the NBA. It's a vertical game. We see short players come into the league and display their talents and convince ourselves that height is overrated, but it isn't. All of those numbers accrued by these tiny savants (Monte Ellis, Ben Gordon, etc.) mask underlying problems: defense, toughness, shooting percentage, shot selection, etc.

A Disclaimer: This is about RELATIVE Size - I'm not suggesting that every NBA player be 7' tall. It's about position. Derrick Rose is a giant, but Michael Beasley is a Lilliputian, despite the fact that Beasley is 4" taller, because Rose plays at a position where he's about 2" taller (and 200% more athletic) than his average counterpart, while Beasley is going to be at least 2" shorter than everyone he plays against. It's all relative.

Shrimps Can't Play Defense - Alright, that's not entirely fair, but it's generally true. There have been plenty of short players throughout history who were superlative defenders (Dennis Rodman, Ben Wallace, etc.), but a hugely disproportionate number of small players have been defensive liabilities. It's obvious why: defense neutralizes talent. Allen Iverson is the most talented player in the NBA, but he stinks on defense. It's not because he doesn't try (well, not when he was with the 76ers, anyway), it's because he has a tiny little body that can't cause much trouble other than nabbing a few steals. Hypothetical: Nate Robinson is the best defender in the world, what's gonna happen if you stick him on Marvin Williams for an entire game? Marvin's gonna score 50 points because Nate can't affect his shots. Nate can try by jumping 40", but defenders make themselves vulnerable when they're in the air, and Marvin will take advantage by taking a foul or by bringing the ball down and sliding towards the basket. That'll never happen in a game, but that illustrates why size is so important for a defender, and why so many under-sized guys struggle, even if they only come up short by an inch or two. Obviously some players are so horrific at defense (or simply don't care) that it doesn't matter how big they are, like Eddy Curry. But height helps, in a very profound way. Some have learned how to compensate, but most haven't, or can't.  

Offense? Yes, but ... - It's pretty obvious that short players can't be relied on for defense. But offense? Yes, many short players throughout history have been superior offensive players. Talent is more important on the offensive end, lots of short guys have an abundance of talent, they generally practice harder, and there are hundreds of ways to get the ball in the hoop (many of which are not reliant on height). Uber-talented players will find a way to score no matter how short they are. Elton Brand, Allen Iverson, Earl Boykins and Charles Barkley are just some of the players who have thrived despite their height. They put up lots of points, because they've learned how to compensate for their deficiency. They put up quick shots, have a high release, practice athletic tear-drops, are fast enough to get open jumpers, throw their body around to get to the free-throw line, and their Napolean Complexes drive them to work their butts off. But there are many problems here. 1st) Statistics are overrated. Most 20+ PPG scorers don't have much impact on their team. In the NBA there is a huge gap between 'productivity' and 'impact'. Most 'good' players only deliver the former (Iverson, Redd, Carter); many 'average' players deliver only the latter (Bowen, Posey, Kurt Thomas); and the 'superstars' deliver both (Duncan, Bryant, LBJ, Paul). 2nd) Shorter players are forced to be more reliant on lower-percentage shots, thus the abundance of tall dudes on the shooting percentage leaderboards. 3rd) Short guys handle the ball more often, so they willfully take more shots, despite the fact that they're less accurate. This is why guys like Stephon Marbury and Gilbert Arenas are losers, they embrace a play-style that is inherently ineffective.

Toughness - It's hard for me to accuse short players of lacking toughness because of Allen Iverson, arguably the toughest professional athlete alive (assuming he isn't an android). He is completely unbelievable. He plays like a rabid punching bag. He's the NBA's equivalent of an NFL power RB, whose careers are lucky to make it to 30. Iverson's 33!!! And he's still putting up nearly 30 PPG!!! I don't understand it. I'd accuse him of taking HGH but he barely weighs 160 pounds. Even with his lack of defense and his refusal to practice, I admire the heck out of the guy. If he'd had fewer off-the-court issues and had one a Championship he'd be a legend who we'd be telling stories about for generations. Okay, enough of that. Short guys, in general, need to be tougher. Alright, sure, plenty of them are bursting with pride, feistiness, competitiveness, etc. But far too many are reluctant to play defense (because of their tiny frames), and reluctant to practice hard (because their tiny frames are worn out by plowing through the regular season), and reluctant to post anyone up (because it's easier and more glamorous to take jump-shots). Some of these things are understandable. I certainly couldn't do any better. I'm not necessarily blaming them, but rather I'm simply addressing the fact that shortness results in these problems, and this needs to be acknowledged. 

Stubborn Shooting Guards - This is a very, very real problem that needs to be fixed immediately. I've talked about this extensively in a previous blog, so I'll stay brief. The short SGs who become 'stars' in high school and college because stubborn, unmanageable fools who harm their teams by refusing to learn how to play PG. Ben Gordon, Nate Robinson, Allen Iverson, and too many others demand to be SGs for the entirety of their careers, not caring that they're turning their back-courts into undersized defensive liabilities. Even if they do cave in and play a little PG, they do so reluctantly, and take an inordinate number of shots, which ends up with the coach announcing the following at a press conference: 'We're gonna be moving him back to the position that's best for his skill-set, so he can help this team win by putting the ball in the basket.' Uh huh. These players are poison. Competitiveness is great. Competitiveness derived from pride that drives a player to abject selfishness is not great. 

It's about Championships - Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Moses Malone, Julius Erving, James Worthy, Kevin McHale, Robert Parish, Dennis Johnson, Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, Hakeem Olajuwon, Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili, David Robinson, Shaquille O'Neal, Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett. On Championship-winning teams since 1980, these were the star players with good size. Here's the list of undersized star players on those same teams: Isiah Thomas, Dwyane Wade ... Paul Pierce? ... maybe not. (By the way, Dwyane Wade had Shaq, and they were playing against a team of world-class chokers.) These lists are not flukes (though Isiah Thomas is a fluke, in more ways than one). How many of the players on these lists were defensive liabilities? A few were, at times, but they were surrounded by plenty of other big guys who *were* good on defense. I'll make the connection for you, in case you haven't done so already: defense wins championships, bigger players are better at defense, therefore bigger players win championships. 

Shortcomings - Many short players have come into the league and become stars, but they never win Titles. Charles Barkley, Allen Iverson, and Adrian Dantley never won anything. There are countless others. They've had their flirtations, but there are usually caveats (like Iverson's run through the horrible East, only to get his lunch handed to him by a significantly better Lakers team). Relative to their talent they are *tremendous* underachievers. Look at the current crop. Iverson is on one of the most talented teams in the league with a terrific coach and they're going absolutely nowhere. Brand's never done anything.

Position Matters - Size is much more important at the larger positions. A 5'11" PG is much less harmful to his team than a 6'9" C. For PGs, at both ends of the court, physicality is less important than quickness and aptitude, and there's usually a lot more space between the offender and defender. They have more room to shoot, more room to pass, more control (for which shortness actually helps, because dribbles take less time, and therefore the ball is in their hands more often), and their quickness allows them to find shooting-seams in traffic. Post players have much greater need for size because they're constantly grappling with their counterparts, and quickness is often neutralized. All of this adds up to the Isiah Thomas and Dwyane Wade flukes (odd that both of these guys have those ridiculous name-spellings). But I'll repeat that Wade had Shaq, and Isiah Thomas was a true PG.

I Actually Respect Short Players - I do, it's true. I have fun watching Allen Iverson. I love Nate Robinson (all the way back to his days as a Husky cornerback, and that insane put-back slam against NC State). But watchability is far different from winning. Do you want your team to be the Spurs or the Warriors? If you don't care about winning, then have fun ... but it'll only last 82 games. I'm more concerned with rings, which is why I'm so angry at my Blazers (the Sonics are bye-bye, so I'm now calling them 'my' Blazers) for acquiring Jerryd Bayless. I don't care how fun he'll be to watch, because I want to cheer for a team that seeks something more profound than statistics and merchandising. This isn't a playground.

A Final Disclaimer - I avoided pre-1980 for two simple reasons: 1st) I'm young. 2nd) Size was weirder back then. Bill Russell was only 6'9", which would be tiny today, but it was pretty big back then. I didn't want to deal with the height inflation, especially when put together in disharmony with my ignorance of deep NBA history. This is not because pre-1980 history 'disproves' my theories. Yes, Wes Unseld won a ring in 1978, but the NBA sucked and they were playing the star-less Sonics. There are always exceptions to the rule.

Closing Personal Note: I'm angry at myself for my reliance on parentheses. I need to retune my writing style.

This draft's theme: NBA-ready bodies who simply haven't panned out. In this top 10 we have three careers which've been stunted (or stopped outright) by injuries, three guys with prototypical talent-sets who've become completely average players, and two players with freakish physical talents who can't seem to make their prolific statistics result in wins. There are only *two* abject busts. Not bad.

1. Rockets - Yao Ming -- There are many things, good and bad, to say about Yao Ming. They've all been said before. Was he worth the #1 pick? Maybe ... or *definitely* if you're the Houston owner and you enjoy money (cause Ming's presence also turned Tracy McGrady into China's favorite player, which would be a funny cultural issue to explore at another time). I won't dock the Rockets for his injury troubles. BUT, the Rockets have been pathetic underachievers with Ming and McGrady. *One* superstar is supposed to be enough to make you a contender (LBJ). The Rockets have *two* players who have been labeled superstars throughout their careers, and yet they can't get out of the first round. Further proof that statistics are overrated. However, Ming's remaining potential and the reality of economics prevent me from criticizing this selection.

2. Bulls - Jay Williams -- For another player (like Kellen Winslow Jr.) you could criticize the team for ignoring character questions ... that's simply not a valid argument with this guy. His motorcycle accident was a bizarre, unfortunate fluke. In my opinion, if that had never happened, Williams would be a very solid player, and right now the Bulls wouldn't be stupidly shopping Kirk Hinrich so they could acquire Derrick Rose. Point guards should not be drafted in the top-3.

3. Warriors - Mike Dunleavy -- In college he was a very nice switch-blade player who looked great because he was surrounded by *better* players on a high-profile team. He's a skinny white guy with no expertise. Why did we think he would be any more than a semi-useful role player? He's become *exactly* what he was meant to be.

4. Grizzlies - Drew Gooden -- Why is a rebounding savant with limited offense and character flaws being drafted in the top-5? I don't understand this. Maturity questions have been thoroughly answered by the hideous patch of fur he keeps on the back of his neck ... and his unwillingness to pass despite being a terrible shooter. This guy could still contribute to a title winner, he just needs a little mentoring from Dennis Rodman.

5. Nuggets - Nickoloz Tskitishvili -- Skinny white euro-trash. Terrible pick, even if every scout in the world was insisting that this weed was gonna be Nowitzki, because Nowitzki is a 7' wuss who'll never win a title. Not worth the 5th pick.

6. Cavaliers - DaJuan Wagner -- A tweener guard who has no interest in doing anything but shooting has turned out to be a flop? Where am I? Is this Oz? The Bizarro World? Oh, no, I forgot, this is reality. EARTH TO NBA TEAMS: DO NOT DRAFT JERRYD BAYLESS!!!

7. Nuggets - Neno Hilario -- Meh. Who the Hell knows with these things. Nene had an NBA body and NBA skills. He's shown flashes. He still might turn out to be something worthwhile. I've got nothing else to say.

8. Clippers - Chris Wilcox -- The most NBA-ready player on Maryland's Tourney-winner was also its least-productive. He underachieved in college, and he's underachieved in the NBA. Not a bad player, though. Hard to criticize the pick ... except that Stoudamire was still on the board.

9. Suns - Amare Stoudamire -- Great pick, obviously. What's most incredible about Stoudamire is his full recovery from two micro-fractures. He's a freak! Do I have critical things to say about him? Yes. I don't believe he's nearly as impactful as his statistics. But he's young and he can figure things out. But with D'Antoni gone and Nash about to drop dead, he's nearing a climax, we'll see which direction his career takes ...

10. Heat - Caron Butler -- Good body, tough-as-nails, plenty of skills ... Butler is the kind of piece you want to add to an NBA team, no matter what your roster looks like.

Look at this list. How many of these guys have had a substantial impact on their team? Yes, Yao and Amare are excellent players, but we've repeatedly witnessed their teams flourish without them. They haven't 'figured it out' yet (remember when we were saying that about Kobe all season? that was funny). There's one guy who fits the bill: Caron Butler, a talented, hard-nosed competitor with a reputation for tenacity. Personality. Personality. Personality. The last few Wizards' seasons exemplify the importance of guys like Caron Butler, and the degrading poison of players like Gilbert Arenas, which brings us back to the terribleness of the DaJuan Wagner pick ... actually, the Cavaliers should be thrilled that he didn't pan out.

This time, THINK before you respond. If all you can come up with is: 'Hey dud, Gillbert scorz 30 #### POINTS EVRY GAMe! And Yau is the best senter in the WRRLD!!' Don't bother responding. I'm not interested. I'm perfectly aware of the opinions of mindless tools and their insubstantial arguments. Give me something meaty to chew on.

So, I'm watching TaJuan Porter right now, and the Ducks are up by 13 despite the fact that the little guy does nothing but jack up terrible shots. I know it's become chic to despoil stereotypes, and say things like: 'See, height doesn't matter in basketball! Just look at Nate Robinson and Allen Iverson!' But you know what? The more I watch shrimps like Porter, the more my faith in stereotypes grows. Height is very important in basketball.

The problem with these super-short guys isn't talent, they have more of it than anyone. A.I. is the toughest dude in the sport, and Nate Robinson might be the most explosive athlete in the NBA. Their primary problem is the chip on their shoulder. It drives them to play like complete idiots. Have you noticed that virtually all basketball players under 5'10" are tweeners? All these guys want to do is play offense. Their coaches keep pushing them to play the point, but they resist, and play half-heartedly, and eventually get moved back to the 2, and then all the pundits clap their hands because the 'coach is recognizing his players' talents'. No one pays attention to the fact that it isn't exactly good for a defense to have a back-court with an average height under 6'. How many teams have won anything with a sub-6-footer starting at the 2-guard?

If these guys committed themselves to the point, and lost their playground-pride, I'd be fine with them. Point guard is the least height-reliant position on the court, plenty of 6-footers win Championships at that position. But they don't change. They aren't winners. They're selfish and immature, and prideful to the detriment of everyone around them.

Jason Williams finally won a Championship because he grew up and listened to all of the people who told him that taking 3's from 10' beyond the line was a bad idea. But he's 6' tall, he wasn't on a crusade to give the middle finger to a bunch of imaginary people who told him that he can't play basketball because he's too short. He wasn't consumed by pride.

I don't want to get preachy, but this idiotic culture has begun to glorify pride. I'm an agnostic, but I recognize that there are some pretty damn good reasons that pride is one of the Seven Sins. It's a terrible vice, and we're just begging our children to possess it with all of our nonsense about 'self-esteem' and 'being true to yourself' and 'not letting anyone keep you down'. 

If TaJuan Porter makes it to the NBA (and I suspect that he won't, I think NBA teams are starting to figure these things out), he has to ask himself a question: do I care more about winning a Championship, or proving people wrong?

The problem with the latter is that choosing that path will only prove those people (like myself) 100% right.  I look forward to it.