All I can say is ALL those people who think a shot-blocker is not a necessity in BASKETBALL may really haven't played basketball at all.
The answer to this question should be common sense.
Definitely helps when you're out there.
The conversation is getting annoying but my guess is it won't end until we either win a ring with a shotblocker, or without. But really there's two ways to be a great defensive team which can go deep in the playoffs.
1) Good team defense with above average perimeter defenders and a shotblocking or intimidating presence down low.
2) No shotblocker, but still a somewhat defensive minded presence down low(Chi had Wennington/Longly among others) with excellent one on one perimeter defenders and very good team defense as well.
You need team defense first and foremost which could probably get you into the playoffs and maybe win a round. To take the next step and become a true contender, you need a shotblocking presence or elite wing defenders cutting off penetration.
The two teams in recent history who won rings without true shotblockers are Miami and Chicago. Yet both had elite defenders. MJ/Pippen/Rodman were arguably the top defenders in the league at their positions. Wade/Lebron are two of the top defenders at their positions with Lebron clearly being the best. Chalmers is a very good defender, as is Haslem. Battier off the bench is known for defense. Anthony isn't a great shotblocker by any means but is intimidating and does alter shots.
Then you have the other champions who were very strong inside. Lakers had Shaq, which pretty much speaks for itself. Also had Kobe who's an elite defender, various very good PF defenders from Horace Grant to Horry, and very good defensive PG's from Harper to Fisher. The Spurs had the Robinson/Duncan combo obviously, but then Duncan centering the defense for the last decade plus. SA is known for plugging in very good wing defenders as well, and most know Bowen. Manu has always been a very good defender. Detroit had Wallace of course, a shotblocker, an in his prime Prince who was a lockdown 3 and Billups who's a very good defender.
I can go on, but why? I've taken the time before and the posts are discarded until someone pops up a few weeks later and asks the same questions again, the the conversation starts all over again like various points have never been brought up. Forgot who said it in another thread, maybe Telemachus, but he said getting a shotblocker doesn't change your defense automatically.Well, Ibaka, Chnadler or D12 does but outside of them you do need good team defense to use a shotblocker effectively which I agree with. We had Daly, yet I often complained when Reke/MT/Beno/our SF's didn't shade the defender towards Daly. You need team defense to understand how to send the attacking players towards a shotblocker. You funnel them to the shotblocker. So in general I agree with Telemachus's point.
But you'll never have a good defensive team with IT/MT/Jimmer/undersized SF playing mins and no shotblocker( a good defensive team could cover one of them and I personally think IT is a better defender than Jimmer/MT), which is what we have right now. I'll also add though with a good defensive coach(Thibs, where are you? Get Sloan or JVG!) a shotblocker would really help us, as if we got a defensive SF, paired with Reke, and Cuz who should be a pretty good team defender, a shotblocker would really round things out. Yet, we still don't have the defensive SF, or the defensive minded coach who taught team defense. Holes to fill.....