I suggested to someone that perhaps if one were shorter than 6’2’’ or so, it actually became advantageous to be really short since you would be playing against people who were not used to defending against really short opponents.
But this guy said, No, every inch that Muggsy could have added would have been helpful.
Thoughts?
If your argument was correct, wouldn’t you expect to see more 5’3" players than 5’5" or 5’7" players? Thisis not the case. Muggsy is the only 5’3", there are none at 5’4", 1 at 5’5" 1 at 5’6", 6 at 5’7" 3 at 5’8" and 12 at 5’9".
Good point. Thanks.
The other side of the argument is that the lack of height really kills you on defense. There’s evidence at this point that you can actually score more by going shorter/smaller (at least to a point), but you’re going to be giving at least some of that advantage back on the other side of the court. At the extreme end of the spectrum, you have to add a massive amount of offensive efficiency over that random 6’3" guy to outweigh the defensive loss. Even someone as talented as Iverson was paired with a taller guard whenever possible to get to an acceptable level of defensive efficiency.
Moved MPSIMS --> the Game Room.
I think your point is well taken. Really tall guys that can’t shoot for shit usually have impressive numbers when it come to blocked shots. Because of the defender’s height it changes the shot selection to where the shooter has to be wide open or the monster defender has to be out of the play. So yes, there is a trade-off. There must be some geek stats freak out there that has analyzed this.
The only advantage shortness has, as far as I can tell, is that if you keep your dribble low, no one can steal from you without losing his balance much of the time, and you can steal from taller players without losing yours.
All you have to ask is why would you be playing against players who aren’t used to playing really short opponents?
Even if that were true, it wouldn’t make up for the fact that the very short player is giving up a lot of height, weight, and strength. Speed is an advantage and that can be related to size, but shortness on its own is not. I also think 6’1" or 6’2" is going to be about average for point guard. You’ll find few shooting guards that size, and it’s way to short to play any other position. So 6’2" wouldn’t be a good starting place for this comparison. You’d need to look at players who are well under 6’, and as noted there are not that many of them.
Muggsy Bogues was freakishly quick AND fast, so he may have benefited from his height in some way that other players wouldn’t. Hard to say.