All-around players are overrated

[Quintilianus]

Hello everybody, I haven't seen this thought put out here, at least not in the recent history.
I want to talk about guys that can do it all. The all-around players that are really loved by fans, obviously because they always make the extra pass and throw the responsibility for a loss of of their shoulders.
History has shown that all-around players haven't had that much team success compared to scorers and post-dominant players. And that's kinda surprising, isn't it?
Keep in mind that i'm not taking defense, clutchness, and factors like that into deciding what is an all-around player, i'm strictly talking 'bout those guys, that are known for their pts-reb-ast stats and one another major thing is that they're willing to pass the ball late.
I'll just name an equal amount of one-thing-dominant players and all-around players and add their amount of rings together to have a perspective on this opinion, that the new generation of fans aren't to supposed to agree with.
So let's take MJ+Kobe+Wilt+Dream+Moses+admiral+elvin+Reed. That's 6+5+2+2+1+2+1+2=21 rings.
Magic+Bird+LBJ+Oscar+KG+JKidd+Dr.J+Elgin accounts for 5+3+1+1+1+1+1+0=13 rings
Keep in mind that I left out duncan who probably coud've been in the one thing dominant group, and bill russell who excelled at defense and rebounding but was just a mediocre scorer. IF we add both of those guys the margin between the two groups is like three times bigger.
Again, this thread is not to diminish the likes of lbj, oscar or guys like that, this is just for discussing and deciding between all-arounds and one-thing-dominants(this is a terrible term, but english is not my first language, i apologize).
So what do you think?

[qrich]

Craig Smith & Steve Novak >> Lamar Odom :bowdown:

[tazb]

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/didnt-read-lol-chicken-gif.gif

LeBron > Kobe.

[Kblaze8855]

English not being your first language im gonna assume there was a bit of a misunderstanding.

How do you list guys like Wilt and MJ as one thing dominant guys? Wilt led the NBA in assists once, was second another season, and MJ was doing 30+/8/8 and 30/6/6 on a regular basis. They had all around numbers to match anyones. Hell David Robinson was doing like 30/11/5/3/3 at one point.

[Quintilianus]

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/didnt-read-lol-chicken-gif.gif

LeBron > Kobe.
Your IQ must be challenging the double digit barrier by now. Or is it still in single digits?

[LEFT4DEAD]

MJ one dimensional
:coleman:

[Quintilianus]

English not being your first language im gonna assume there was a bit of a misunderstanding.

How do you list guys like Wilt and MJ as one thing dominant guys? Wilt led the NBA in assists once, was second another season, and MJ was doing 30+/8/8 and 30/6/6 on a regular basis. They had all around numbers to match anyones. Hell David Robinson was doing like 30/11/5/3/3 at one point.
Wilt was doing that assist-leading stuff intentionally, he wasn't naturally like that. Although one of his rings came as him being used as a somewhat all-around player, so there's truth to your thought.
MJ was the same thing, he averaged 30/8/8 by playing a PG, that wasn't something that he has done consistently in his career though.
What I mean by one-thing-dominant is that one aspect of the game overshadows other aspects.
MJ was known for his scoring, and when his team needed a push he took on all of the scoring, Wilt, on the other hand, has consistently failed to wing as a dominant player, so you're probably right on wilt, we can move him to the all-around group. The problem with that is that we need to add somebody in his place, and I won't hesitate to put duncan in anymore. That still came out as a plus for one-aspect-dominants(maybe that's a better term, but still sounds terrible)

[Scholar]

Hello everybody, I haven't seen this thought put out here, at least not in the recent history.
I want to talk about guys that can do it all. The all-around players that are really loved by fans, obviously because they always make the extra pass and throw the responsibility for a loss of of their shoulders.
History has shown that all-around players haven't had that much team success compared to scorers and post-dominant players. And that's kinda surprising, isn't it?
Keep in mind that i'm not taking defense, clutchness, and factors like that into deciding what is an all-around player, i'm strictly talking 'bout those guys, that are known for their pts-reb-ast stats and one another major thing is that they're willing to pass the ball late.
I'll just name an equal amount of one-thing-dominant players and all-around players and add their amount of rings together to have a perspective on this opinion, that the new generation of fans aren't to supposed to agree with.
So let's take MJ+Kobe+Wilt+Dream+Moses+admiral+elvin+Reed. That's 6+5+2+2+1+2+1+2=21 rings.
Magic+Bird+LBJ+Oscar+KG+JKidd+Dr.J+Elgin accounts for 5+3+1+1+1+1+1+0=13 rings
Keep in mind that I left out duncan who probably coud've been in the one thing dominant group, and bill russell who excelled at defense and rebounding but was just a mediocre scorer. IF we add both of those guys the margin between the two groups is like three times bigger.
Again, this thread is not to diminish the likes of lbj, oscar or guys like that, this is just for discussing and deciding between all-arounds and one-thing-dominants(this is a terrible term, but english is not my first language, i apologize).
So what do you think?

Join date: Apr 2013

[Quintilianus]

Join date: Apr 2013
You do realize that registration was opened very recently?
I have been lurking on here for quite some time now

[KyrieTheFuture]

I understand what you're trying to say but I don't understand how you can believe it

[HYJ]

Wilt was doing that assist-leading stuff intentionally, he wasn't naturally like that. Although one of his rings came as him being used as a somewhat all-around player, so there's truth to your thought.
MJ was the same thing, he averaged 30/8/8 by playing a PG, that wasn't something that he has done consistently in his career though.What I mean by one-thing-dominant is that one aspect of the game overshadows other aspects.
MJ was known for his scoring, and when his team needed a push he took on all of the scoring, Wilt, on the other hand, has consistently failed to wing as a dominant player, so you're probably right on wilt, we can move him to the all-around group. The problem with that is that we need to add somebody in his place, and I won't hesitate to put duncan in anymore. That still came out as a plus for one-aspect-dominants(maybe that's a better term, but still sounds terrible)


MJ's Career Average: 30/6/5/2 Stls

[The Choken One]

Trying to sound smart, huh OP?

Well knock it off because right now you look like a fhcking idiot. Did you even believe the chit you just spit out? :roll:

[Quintilianus]

MJ's Career Average: 30/6/5/2 Stls
Yes, but scoring was that man's first and second weapon and you know that.

Please note that i'm not trying to say that MJ, Kobe, Duncan or anybody on that list couldn't do anything besides their one dominant aspect. I'm just saying that aspect significantly outshined other aspects.

You can call lebron an elite scorer, maybe not a top3 scorer, but he's 4th at the lowest, so that's debatable, but he still has an elite passing ability, he's a decent rebounder too. There's games where his scoring numbers aren't really mind-blowing, but he has like 9 assists and 9 rebs, so that somewhat makeups for it, at least in the eyes of the fans.
I just want to say that all-around play is somewhat underrated, and guys that are perfect at i.e. scoring get downplayed on player rankings because they don't get a few more rebounds or assists.

[Bandito]

Kobe and Mj are allaround players genius. Dominant in one facet would be players like Melo or Durant.

[pauk]

Hello everybody, I haven't seen this thought put out here, at least not in the recent history.
I want to talk about guys that can do it all. The all-around players that are really loved by fans, obviously because they always make the extra pass and throw the responsibility for a loss of of their shoulders.
History has shown that all-around players haven't had that much team success compared to scorers and post-dominant players. And that's kinda surprising, isn't it?
Keep in mind that i'm not taking defense, clutchness, and factors like that into deciding what is an all-around player, i'm strictly talking 'bout those guys, that are known for their pts-reb-ast stats and one another major thing is that they're willing to pass the ball late.
I'll just name an equal amount of one-thing-dominant players and all-around players and add their amount of rings together to have a perspective on this opinion, that the new generation of fans aren't to supposed to agree with.
So let's take MJ+Kobe+Wilt+Dream+Moses+admiral+elvin+Reed. That's 6+5+2+2+1+2+1+2=21 rings.
Magic+Bird+LBJ+Oscar+KG+JKidd+Dr.J+Elgin accounts for 5+3+1+1+1+1+1+0=13 rings
Keep in mind that I left out duncan who probably coud've been in the one thing dominant group, and bill russell who excelled at defense and rebounding but was just a mediocre scorer. IF we add both of those guys the margin between the two groups is like three times bigger.
Again, this thread is not to diminish the likes of lbj, oscar or guys like that, this is just for discussing and deciding between all-arounds and one-thing-dominants(this is a terrible term, but english is not my first language, i apologize).
So what do you think?

MJ was an allround player aswell. :no: As good as any allround player ever...

Kobe i would say is an allround player to.

You forgot to add Pippen to, but i see why you left him out considering your agenda (to many rings).

[Quintilianus]

MJ was an allround player aswell. :no: As good as any allround player ever...

So is Kobe... he is just extra scoring minded...
That's the point, that extra something that makes those guys dominant in one aspect of the game.
You can't really say that LeBron is a dominant scorer or a dominant passer, but he's elite in both, and a decent rebounder nonetheless. Same stuff with Bird and Magic.

[pauk]

That's the point, that extra something that makes those guys dominant in one aspect of the game.
You can't really say that LeBron is a dominant scorer or a dominant passer, but he's elite in both, and a decent rebounder nonetheless. Same stuff with Bird and Magic.

Yes he is........

[La Frescobaldi]

By "elvin".... do you mean the Big E - Elvin Hayes?

[Quintilianus]

Yes he is........
Not really, he doesn't try to overtake the game with one of those things, he tries to mix them in clutch situations, and that's, imho, a reason for his shortcomings that he had.
What I mean by elite is top 5 if I need to clarify.

[Quintilianus]

By "elvin".... do you mean the Big E - Elvin Hayes?
Yes.

[pauk]

Not really, he doesn't try to overtake the game with any of those things, he tries to mix them in clutch situations, and that's, imho, a reason for his shortcomings that he had.
What I mean by elite is top 5 if I need to clarify.

He doesnt "try to mix them".... he simply plays the game the right way, offensively he dominates teams with his scoring/passing and/or both, it completely depends on how the defense plays him and his teammates..... he has the complete tools offensively which allows him to punish the defense for every mistake....

If Lebron didnt have that vision/passing then he would be forced to score/shoot much more often.... hence "dominate one way".... Lebron despite mixing passing with scoring averages 27.6 ppg (3rd highest in NBA history) at very high percentage and has broken every scoring total milestone from 1000 points to 21000 points.... i wouldnt say he is not a dominant scorer? If he didnt have his passing he would logically average MUCH more points... same goes with passing if he wasnt such a scorer...

A player doing more of one thing is not because of choice, but because of lack of something else....

You are correct that Lebron doesnt dominate ONE way....... he dominates ANY ways....

...and what shortcomings are we talking about here? In the clutch? Show me those facts please? Because ALL the factual "shortcomings" ive seen in that department show only the opposite.... want to see?

[Young X]

SMH at MJ not being listed as an all-around player :facepalm

That's the point, that extra something that makes those guys dominant in one aspect of the game.
You can't really say that LeBron is a dominant scorer or a dominant passer, but he's elite in both, and a decent rebounder nonetheless. Same stuff with Bird and Magic.
Yes he is. He has 3 seasons averaging 30 points, he's 3rd all-time in PPG, hell he almost averaged 40 in a playoff series, he's one of the greatest scorers in NBA history. :facepalm

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

OP hasn't watched and/or played basketball for very long. That much is apparent.

[Mr. Jabbar]

devin stern is underrated

[DatAsh]

Hello everybody, I haven't seen this thought put out here, at least not in the recent history.
I want to talk about guys that can do it all. The all-around players that are really loved by fans, obviously because they always make the extra pass and throw the responsibility for a loss of of their shoulders.
History has shown that all-around players haven't had that much team success compared to scorers and post-dominant players. And that's kinda surprising, isn't it?
Keep in mind that i'm not taking defense, clutchness, and factors like that into deciding what is an all-around player, i'm strictly talking 'bout those guys, that are known for their pts-reb-ast stats and one another major thing is that they're willing to pass the ball late.
I'll just name an equal amount of one-thing-dominant players and all-around players and add their amount of rings together to have a perspective on this opinion, that the new generation of fans aren't to supposed to agree with.
So let's take MJ+Kobe+Wilt+Dream+Moses+admiral+elvin+Reed. That's 6+5+2+2+1+2+1+2=21 rings.
Magic+Bird+LBJ+Oscar+KG+JKidd+Dr.J+Elgin accounts for 5+3+1+1+1+1+1+0=13 rings
Keep in mind that I left out duncan who probably coud've been in the one thing dominant group, and bill russell who excelled at defense and rebounding but was just a mediocre scorer. IF we add both of those guys the margin between the two groups is like three times bigger.
Again, this thread is not to diminish the likes of lbj, oscar or guys like that, this is just for discussing and deciding between all-arounds and one-thing-dominants(this is a terrible term, but english is not my first language, i apologize).
So what do you think?

Are you longtime lurker or Ne 1?

[Odinn]

The closest top 12 players to being a one-dimensional player are Kobe Bryant and Moses Malone.

[Anaximandro1]

Keep in mind that I left out duncan who probably coud've been in the one thing dominant group
Duncan is very tricky for non-Spurs fans for several reasons:

-Spurs averaged 95 ppg and won 58 games/season during Duncan's prime.

-Duncan plays the game the right way.He only cares about winning.Stats are means to an end.You can't expect regular seasons of 28-30ppg in that context :it would be a disservice to the team


Regular season (1998 - 2007)

Duncan played 746 games (Spurs won 531 games - 71.2%)

Duncan 21.8 pt,11.9 rb,3.2 as,2.5 blk FG 50.9% (Spurs averaged 95.3 ppg)

-Spurs won more than 75% of their games in the first round during Duncan's prime.As you can see, his stats don't really stand out.

First Round (1998 - 2007)

Duncan played 42 games (Spurs won 32 games - 76.2%)

Duncan 20.9 pt,11.4 rb,3.9 as,2.9 blk FG 51.5% (Spurs averaged 94.9 ppg)

-Things get interesting once the Spurs made it to the WSCF (Lakers,Mavs,,Suns).The Spurs won 54% of their games (27-23) during Duncan's prime.The Western Conference powerhouses had more firepower than the Spurs, so Duncan went into takeover mode to give his team a chance.


Western Conference Semifinals (1998 - 2007)

Duncan played 50 games (Spurs won 27 games - 54.0%)

Duncan 26.6 pt,12.6 rb,3.1 as,2.4 blk FG 50.6% (Spurs averaged 94.8 ppg)



1998 21.0 pt,8.4 rb,1.2 as,1.6 blk FG 49.4% (Spurs 84.8 ppg)

1999 29.0 pt,10.8 rb,3.3 as,2.0 blk FG 51.3% (Spurs 96.8 ppg)

2001 27.0 pt,17.4 rb,3.6 as,2.0 blk FG 51.0% (Spurs 102.2 ppg)

2002 29.0 pt,17.2 rb,4.6 as,3.2 blk FG 42.5% (Spurs 85.8 ppg)

2003 28.0 pt,11.8 rb,4.8 as,1.3 blk FG 52.9% (Spurs 99.5 ppg)

2004 20.7 pt,12.2 rb,3.3 as,1.7 blk FG 47.3% (Spurs 83.8 ppg)

2005 25.2 pt,10.3 rb,2.5 as,2.5 blk FG 45.9% (Spurs 98.7 ppg)

2006 32.3 pt,11.7 rb,3.7 as,2.6 blk FG 55.6% (Spurs 99.9 ppg)

2007 26.8 pt,13.8 rb,1.2 as,4.2 blk FG 57.3% (Spurs 100.0 ppg)


Playoffs (1998 - 2007)-Excluding First Round

Duncan played 96 games (Spurs won 59 games - 61.5%)

Duncan 25.0 pt,13.0 rb,2.4 as,2.7 blk FG 50.5% (Spurs 93.2 ppg)


1998 21.0 pt,8.4 rb,1.2 as,1.6 blk FG 49.4% (Spurs 84.8 ppg)

1999 24.6 pt,11.7 rb,2.7 as,2.5 blk FG 52.5% (Spurs 88.9 ppg)

2001 25.2 pt,15.1 rb,3.9 as,3.0 blk FG 49.7% (Spurs 92.9 ppg)

2002 29.0 pt,17.2 rb,4.6 as,3.2 blk FG 42.5% (Spurs 85.8 ppg)

2003 26.7 pt,15.2 rb,5.3 as,3.2 blk FG 53.1% (Spurs 96.2 ppg)

2004 20.7 pt,12.2 rb,3.3 as,1.7 blk FG 47.3% (Spurs 83.8 ppg)

2005 24.0 pt,12.8 rb,2.6 as,2.2 blk FG 46.2% (Spurs 95.9 ppg)

2006 32.3 pt,11.7 rb,3.7 as,2.6 blk FG 55.6% (Spurs 99.9 ppg)

2007 22.9 pt,11.7 rb,2.5 as,3.2 blk FG 53.9% (Spurs 96.1 ppg)

[La Frescobaldi]

Hello everybody, I haven't seen this thought put out here, at least not in the recent history.
I want to talk about guys that can do it all. The all-around players that are really loved by fans, obviously because they always make the extra pass and throw the responsibility for a loss of of their shoulders.
History has shown that all-around players haven't had that much team success compared to scorers and post-dominant players. And that's kinda surprising, isn't it?
Keep in mind that i'm not taking defense, clutchness, and factors like that into deciding what is an all-around player, i'm strictly talking 'bout those guys, that are known for their pts-reb-ast stats and one another major thing is that they're willing to pass the ball late.
I'll just name an equal amount of one-thing-dominant players and all-around players and add their amount of rings together to have a perspective on this opinion, that the new generation of fans aren't to supposed to agree with.
So let's take MJ+Kobe+Wilt+Dream+Moses+admiral+elvin+Reed. That's 6+5+2+2+1+2+1+2=21 rings.
Magic+Bird+LBJ+Oscar+KG+JKidd+Dr.J+Elgin accounts for 5+3+1+1+1+1+1+0=13 rings
Keep in mind that I left out duncan who probably coud've been in the one thing dominant group, and bill russell who excelled at defense and rebounding but was just a mediocre scorer. IF we add both of those guys the margin between the two groups is like three times bigger.
Again, this thread is not to diminish the likes of lbj, oscar or guys like that, this is just for discussing and deciding between all-arounds and one-thing-dominants(this is a terrible term, but english is not my first language, i apologize).
So what do you think?
Those guys you listed to make your argument are the exact guys you don't want to use to make your argument.
Jordan & Chamberlain are classic examples of players who were so far above the rest of the world that their own teammates couldn't even see them. Stratospheric. Apollo rockets in flight

It wasn't until they abandoned their overwhelming game style and changed to something that normal all-world NBA level players could understand.... that they had their greatest success.

And further, of all the players I have seen in my lifetime, the all round greatness of Michael Jordan & of Wilt Chamberlain is so far above anyone else it's not even funny... only Kareem, who you did not list here, is at their level imo.

I like the idea of your thread but possibly you might consider other guys for that first group - guys like Adrian Dantley or Carmelo Anthony or George Gervin - yeah, Elvin Hayes. Elite level scorers, absolute black holes.

Because Kobe & Wilt & Mike were so all-round great within their eras that nobody could come close to them - in multiple facets of the game.

[Round Mound]

Yup Larr Bird Is Overrated :facepalm

[SilkkTheShocker]

Jeff, im not telling you how to run your site, but these new posters have been absolutely terrible. It feels like ISH is being watered down by expansion team posters. I haven't seen the OP make a post yet that wasn't a steaming pile of shit.

[iamgine]

I'll just name an equal amount of one-thing-dominant players and all-around players and add their amount of rings together to have a perspective on this opinion, that the new generation of fans aren't to supposed to agree with.
So let's take MJ+Kobe+Wilt+Dream+Moses+admiral+elvin+Reed. That's 6+5+2+2+1+2+1+2=21 rings.
Magic+Bird+LBJ+Oscar+KG+JKidd+Dr.J+Elgin accounts for 5+3+1+1+1+1+1+0=13 rings
This part is dumb on many levels.

[La Frescobaldi]

This part is dumb on many levels.

I noticed that too.... it's like chinese boxes, so many and each one you open has something else....... un-agreeable..... about it.

Elvin Hayes in the same group as Willis Reed, Moses Malone & Hakeem Olajuwan......................... it just kinda takes your breath away

[thabisyo]

:no:


You making all the newly registered guys look bad

[FreezingTsmoove]

These ****ing new posters man :facepalm

Not like my post class last year. Now that was a group of guys I'd get around a computer and just post with

[I<3NBA]

thread ended when you mentioned MJ as one dimensional. the guy is an all time leader in steals.

[Graviton]

These ****ing new posters man :facepalm

Not like my post class last year. Now that was a group of guys I'd get around a computer and just post with
We got lot of quality posters and funny trolls in our draft class. :cheers:

Now these noobs invade and don't even possess the fundamentals, posting IQ or skill. Probably didn't even finish high school typing class yet. :facepalm

[fozi]

Your IQ must be challenging the double digit barrier by now. Or is it still in single digits?

:applause:

haters gonna hate .. Sometimes people cant talk critically because either they're new in basketball or find no realistic reason to criticize a player so they tend to follow the trend ..

[6 for 24]

Greetings denizens of InsideHoops!

I must agree with the premise of this thread, even if I admittedly do not understand the mathematical equation presented within. Here on the plains of Mozambique, we have a saying,

"mmm click-click-clack click-mm-mmm-clack"

which loosely translates to

"one spear awakens the lion.. many spears put him to sleep"

Now in your country, you may not hunt lions as I do, but you do play basketball, which is much the same. And just as, in the field, we value the most valiant spear chuckers, those who have favored one skill over all others, so too should we prize the chuckers of the basketball court. For it is this skill that ultimately decides whether you kill the lion, or the lion kills you.

I hope my analogy is sufficient.

Warmest regards,

Ayotunde Ndiaye

[chazzy]

Greetings denizens of InsideHoops!

I must agree with the premise of this thread, even if I admittedly do not understand the mathematical equation presented within. Here on the plains of Mozambique, we have a saying,

"mmm click-click-clack click-mm-mmm-clack"

which loosely translates to

"one spear awakens the lion.. many spears put him to sleep"

Now in your country, you may not hunt lions as I do, but you do play basketball, which is much the same. And just as, in the field, we value the most valiant spear chuckers, those who have favored one skill over all others, so too should we prize the chuckers of the basketball court. For it is this skill that ultimately decides whether you kill the lion, or the lion kills you.

I hope my analogy is sufficient.

Warmest regards,

Ayotunde Ndiaye
welcome back, starface

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Greetings denizens of InsideHoops!

I must agree with the premise of this thread, even if I admittedly do not understand the mathematical equation presented within. Here on the plains of Mozambique, we have a saying,

"mmm click-click-clack click-mm-mmm-clack"

which loosely translates to

"one spear awakens the lion.. many spears put him to sleep"

Now in your country, you may not hunt lions as I do, but you do play basketball, which is much the same. And just as, in the field, we value the most valiant spear chuckers, those who have favored one skill over all others, so too should we prize the chuckers of the basketball court. For it is this skill that ultimately decides whether you kill the lion, or the lion kills you.

I hope my analogy is sufficient.

Warmest regards,

Ayotunde Ndiaye
:biggums:

[I.R.Beast]

You guys are acting as though you dont know what he is trying to say. I rather a player that has mastered one facet of the game while still doing a bit of the other stuff than a player that is good at everything as well. They have and always will see better success in the NBA. When all else fails they have what they are great at to fall back on to win. The jack of all trades type of player doesn't really have that.

[rhowen4]

These ****ing new posters man :facepalm

Not like my post class last year. Now that was a group of guys I'd get around a computer and just post with
well cheers man

[Quintilianus]

You guys are acting as though you dont know what he is trying to say. I rather a player that has mastered one facet of the game will still doing a bit of the other stuff than a player that is good at everything as well. They have and always will see better success in the NBA. When all else fails they have what they are great at to fall back on to win. The jack of all trades type of player doesn't really have that.
Thank you, at least one guy managed to understand what i'm saying.

I never called MJ one-dimensional, i've seen too many games of his for this thought to even come to mind

[6 for 24]

Mr. Beast:

Yes, I am most excited for your response! You have explained this far better than I can with my limited knowledge of the English language.

When we go lion hunting here in Mozambique, we have to employ a number of tactics. One must learn to hide in the bush, to move silently, and, of course, to throw a spear with great force and accuracy. But without the ability to chuck a spear, over and over and over, all is lost. Why, I remember my close friend Kwasi Okeke. He had a wonderful "all around" game of tracking, subterfuge, and the rest, but, sadly, he did not have the courage to throw a spear at a moment's notice. When the time of battle came, he froze. We buried him that evening. I vowed to always have the courage to chuck as many spears as needed to kill the lion.

This is the day I became a fan of Mr. Kobe Bryant.

Warmest regards,

Ayotunde Ndiaye

[Mrofir]

There is the potential kernel of a decent argument in the thread, but you missed it quant. I won't get all crazy emotional on you for it, welcome to the boards.

The kernel could go something like this

when someone posts big numbers all over the court and seems to be doing a little bit of everything for the team, that could be a reflection of a lack of production from other players. Which would translate into fewer wins and of course, fewer championships. The players mentioned in the first post do not qualify for this argument at all. Kevin Love might be a decent cheap shot example of this sort of thing, or even prime KG some of those Minny years.

But actually I think the Timberwolves just have a sucky franchise.

I'd be curious if anyone could do a scoring distribution analysis on nba finals teams and the eventual champions. I have a feeling that championship teams in which the scoring is unbalanced (ie one player averaging 8+ more pts per game than the 2nd leading scorer) are less common than teams who share the scoring load more evenly. But I could be wrong.

I'm trying to help

[knicksman]

Hello everybody, I haven't seen this thought put out here, at least not in the recent history.
I want to talk about guys that can do it all. The all-around players that are really loved by fans, obviously because they always make the extra pass and throw the responsibility for a loss of of their shoulders.
History has shown that all-around players haven't had that much team success compared to scorers and post-dominant players. And that's kinda surprising, isn't it?
Keep in mind that i'm not taking defense, clutchness, and factors like that into deciding what is an all-around player, i'm strictly talking 'bout those guys, that are known for their pts-reb-ast stats and one another major thing is that they're willing to pass the ball late.
I'll just name an equal amount of one-thing-dominant players and all-around players and add their amount of rings together to have a perspective on this opinion, that the new generation of fans aren't to supposed to agree with.
So let's take MJ+Kobe+Wilt+Dream+Moses+admiral+elvin+Reed. That's 6+5+2+2+1+2+1+2=21 rings.
Magic+Bird+LBJ+Oscar+KG+JKidd+Dr.J+Elgin accounts for 5+3+1+1+1+1+1+0=13 rings
Keep in mind that I left out duncan who probably coud've been in the one thing dominant group, and bill russell who excelled at defense and rebounding but was just a mediocre scorer. IF we add both of those guys the margin between the two groups is like three times bigger.
Again, this thread is not to diminish the likes of lbj, oscar or guys like that, this is just for discussing and deciding between all-arounds and one-thing-dominants(this is a terrible term, but english is not my first language, i apologize).
So what do you think?

I dont think magic was all around. He was a pure pg so remove him from the list

[knicksman]

MJ's Career Average: 30/6/5/2 Stls

mj 2nd 3 peat: below 5 apg and more dominant player. Mj's 32 8 8 is one of the worst record in his career

[I.R.Beast]

mj 2nd 3 peat: below 5 apg and more dominant player. Mj's 32 8 8 is one of the worst record in his career
when you see numbers like that for a player(32-8-8) that is an indicator of ball dominance, and poor ball movement and/or ball sharing. It's the reason why LeBron couldnt win it all in cleveland. His style of play shut players out of the game and made them one dimensional players that weren't allowed to contribute with their full skillset. It's not a coincidence that when Phil came and taught jordan how to play in the offense instead of "being" the offense that the championships started to roll in. LeBron James game still hasn't changed, the reason he has a ring now is because his team has the spot up shooters that his style of play requires and 2 other superstars to keep the pressure off of him. players like LBJ, Chris Paul, Nash and other extremely ball dominant players need "stacked" teams to be successful because their style of play is not conducive to getting the most out of lesser players. A player like Kobe, Durant and/or Carmelo will always be able to get more out of their average to slightly above average teammates because their polished offensive games allows them to be dominant scorers without necessarily dominating the ball, so other players get to contribute outside of just spot up shooting.

It's just pure logic.

[Mrofir]

players like Nash need "stacked" teams to be successful because their style of play is not conducive to getting the most out of lesser players. A player like Kobe, Durant and/or Carmelo will always be able to get more out of their average to slightly above average teammates because their polished offensive games allows them to be dominant scorers without necessarily dominating the ball, so other players get to contribute outside of just spot up shooting.

It's just pure logic.


Oh my God.

:wtf:

[Lebron23]

Oh my God.

:wtf:


Just ignore him. He's the 2nd account of ripthekik.

[I.R.Beast]

Oh my God.

:wtf:


think about what i said...let it simmer...you'll catch on eventually...

[Quintilianus]

Just ignore him. He's the 2nd account of ripthekik.
Well didn't he made some sense? It is logical, that a ball dominant player can be detrimental to the team, as rondo going down has somewhat shown a prime example of that.

[Lebron23]

I'll just report all of your posts, Get a F*cking job.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/member.php?u=3907

Permabanned

[Quintilianus]

I'll just report all of your posts, Get a F*cking job.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/member.php?u=3907

Permabanned
You're incredibly insecure, aren't you?

[Lebron23]

mj 2nd 3 peat: below 5 apg and more dominant player. Mj's 32 8 8 is one of the worst record in his career


You are really an idiot. Michael Jordan had a much better supporting casts in the 2nd 3 peat. Late 1980's Jordan was a better individual player.

[Mrofir]

I've let it simmer. Now I understand that the reason Jazz never won a championship with Stockton is because he was too ball dominant and needed a stacked team, because his style wasn't conducive to getting the best out of his teammates.

I pray for the future of mankind

[Lebron23]

You're incredibly insecure, aren't you?


Reported

[I.R.Beast]

I've let it simmer. Now I understand that the reason Jazz never won a championship with Stockton is because he was too ball dominant and needed a stacked team, because his style wasn't conducive to getting the best out of his teammates.

I pray for the future of mankind
i said lesser teammates such as the role players that aren't all star players but have skills to contribute to the team..a ball dominant player makes those type of players into spot up shooters essentially... You should read thoroughly before you go about "quoting" people.

[I.R.Beast]

the reason teams like the nuggets are so good is because they share the ball. no one player dominates and thus everyone gets to utilize their full set of skills within an offense, it's the same reason why the 04 pistons were so good as well. That type of productivity from a unit can never be accomplished when the ball is dominated by one player. Basketball is a team sport for a reason. How old are some of the people who post in here?...

Pure logic

[fefe]

I think that this thread is not bad at all. much better than the average ish thread before the new posters, when every thread turned into meaningless kobe hater vs kobe stan fights after the second page.

On the other hand I really disagree with the OP about his classification of players into these one dimensional and do it all type categories.
First of all, there are really one dimensional players, specialists, like Reggie Evans, Rodman, Ben Wallace, Korver, Novak, etc, who are really great in some things but really suck in everything else.
Then we have the players who do everything, but have some weaknesses, like Steve Nash can not defend, Melo can not pass, etc, etc.
Then we have these allaround players, who don't really have any weakness, and are great in all facets of the game, like LeBron, MJ, Kobe, Duncan.
(The most crazy thing is that the OP put MJ and Kobe in the on trick pony category, and he was talking about putting Duncan there also...)

Great players work on their weaknesses, as for example Durant is becoming more and more of an allaround player each season. And even Shaq and Wilt reached 60% + freethrow shooting by the end of their careers, making them allaround players without a really week point, that opponents could attack.

[Mrofir]

the reason teams like the nuggets are so good is because they share the ball. no one player dominates and thus everyone gets to utilize their full set of skills within an offense, it's the same reason why the 04 pistons were so good as well. That type of productivity from a unit can never be accomplished when the ball is dominated by one player. Basketball is a team sport for a reason. How old are some of the people who post in here?...

Pure logic

Dude you said that Nash is a player unable to get the most out of his teammates. And then you said that Kobe and Carmelo are players who embody the opposite of this effect.

Pure garbage.

I am 167 years old.

Here, read. http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/PHO/2010.html

Notice the offensive efficiency rating of every steve nash led offense from 2005-2010. I'll give you a hint. 1 is a good number in that category.

[KOBE143]

I think a legit all around players that would do anything to win are not overrated just like Kobe, MJ, Magic, etc. but I think players who statpad and players who only care about their stats despite losing just to makes them looks like an all around player are what we can call overrated just like some heat player..

[I<3NBA]

but I think players who statpad and players who only care about their stats despite losing just to makes them looks like an all around player are what we can call overrated
sounds like someone i know who just passed an all time leader in scoring... (hint. his team is also losing with him getting scoring "stats")

[iamgine]

You guys are acting as though you dont know what he is trying to say. I rather a player that has mastered one facet of the game while still doing a bit of the other stuff than a player that is good at everything as well. They have and always will see better success in the NBA. When all else fails they have what they are great at to fall back on to win. The jack of all trades type of player doesn't really have that.
Like who are we comparing here?

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Mr. Beast:

Yes, I am most excited for your response! You have explained this far better than I can with my limited knowledge of the English language.

When we go lion hunting here in Mozambique, we have to employ a number of tactics. One must learn to hide in the bush, to move silently, and, of course, to throw a spear with great force and accuracy. But without the ability to chuck a spear, over and over and over, all is lost. Why, I remember my close friend Kwasi Okeke. He had a wonderful "all around" game of tracking, subterfuge, and the rest, but, sadly, he did not have the courage to throw a spear at a moment's notice. When the time of battle came, he froze. We buried him that evening. I vowed to always have the courage to chuck as many spears as needed to kill the lion.

This is the day I became a fan of Mr. Kobe Bryant.

Warmest regards,

Ayotunde Ndiaye
this is too funny :roll: :roll: :roll: :oldlol: :oldlol:

[6 for 24]

Most gracious residents of InsideHoops:

It saddens me to see so much fighting over these so-called "stats" in these discussions. Here in Mozambique, we do not even have a word for "stats" and simply track the game performance with our eyes (or eye-- one eye is usually on lookout for lions). And what I see with my eye is Kobe Bryant putting the ball in the cylinder over and over. This is not the point of your game? Then how can he not be the greatest player?

Consider it a meal for thinking, as I believe your expression goes.

Warmest regards,

Ayotunde Ndiaye

[KOBE143]

sounds like someone i know who just passed an all time leader in scoring... (hint. his team is also losing with him getting scoring "stats")
I think you have a hard time guessing the some heat player.. I give you another clue.. He is LeBron James.. Wish you will get it right now..

[knicksman]

You are really an idiot. Michael Jordan had a much better supporting casts in the 2nd 3 peat. Late 1980's Jordan was a better individual player.

Only idiots think that theres such a thing called better individual player:oldlol:

[knicksman]

when you see numbers like that for a player(32-8-8) that is an indicator of ball dominance, and poor ball movement and/or ball sharing. It's the reason why LeBron couldnt win it all in cleveland. His style of play shut players out of the game and made them one dimensional players that weren't allowed to contribute with their full skillset. It's not a coincidence that when Phil came and taught jordan how to play in the offense instead of "being" the offense that the championships started to roll in. LeBron James game still hasn't changed, the reason he has a ring now is because his team has the spot up shooters that his style of play requires and 2 other superstars to keep the pressure off of him. players like LBJ, Chris Paul, Nash and other extremely ball dominant players need "stacked" teams to be successful because their style of play is not conducive to getting the most out of lesser players. A player like Kobe, Durant and/or Carmelo will always be able to get more out of their average to slightly above average teammates because their polished offensive games allows them to be dominant scorers without necessarily dominating the ball, so other players get to contribute outside of just spot up shooting.

It's just pure logic.

Theres a reason why teams like russells celtics or spurs are successful teams. Lebron is just lucky to be under sterns regime or else the spurs would have more chips.

And I dont think ball dominant players are not capable of winning. magic is a ball dominant player. Its just that he is a pure pg and not a score first pg. Players who score and pass at the same time are the ones who are detrimental to team ball. Thats why players like AI, arenas are considered cancerous.

[MJ(Mean John)]

Craig Smith & Steve Novak >> Lamar Odom :bowdown:


Gtfoh son

[Flush]

Aaaand i stopped reading when the word RING came.

[K Xerxes]

when you see numbers like that for a player(32-8-8) that is an indicator of ball dominance, and poor ball movement and/or ball sharing. It's the reason why LeBron couldnt win it all in cleveland. His style of play shut players out of the game and made them one dimensional players that weren't allowed to contribute with their full skillset. It's not a coincidence that when Phil came and taught jordan how to play in the offense instead of "being" the offense that the championships started to roll in. LeBron James game still hasn't changed, the reason he has a ring now is because his team has the spot up shooters that his style of play requires and 2 other superstars to keep the pressure off of him.

As a disclaimer, the reason LeBron couldn't win in Cleveland (or get further than he did in his playoff appearances) is more to do with the lack of offensive system instilled by Mike Brown rather than his own shortcomings. The team was exposed to a 'give it to LeBron and get out of the way' mentality in the playoffs, and that simply isn't going to work against smarter and more organised teams that could see it coming ten thousand miles away.

I believe that you and Quintilianus are on the right track about all-round players and winning championships, but you've got the wrong end of the stick. I'll use LeBron's recent title run as an example.

LeBron's career regular season averages are around 27-7-7, and we all (hopefully) know that he is at least above average in scoring, rebounding, passing and defending. However, in the playoffs, that average is distorted and the scoring and rebounding is bumped up at the expense of his passing.

The thing is, when push comes to shove, all-round players generally tend to have to play as more specialised players. In that intense Boston series? LeBron abandoned passing and went on an all out scoring assault, ending up with a 33-11-3 average. That's not 'LeBron-esque' - those numbers would suit a dominant center. His playoff averages were 30-10-5. Again, not something you'd see from a typical LeBron James season or series. Now, in the finals, the games lent itself for LeBron to play a more all-round game: he was mostly guarded by a smaller player (Sefolosha/Harden) and commanded a double team in the post, in which case he could dish it out to the spot-up shooters to drain the three. His finals averages were 29-10-7, which are a lot 'more' 'LeBron-esque'.

Let's not get it wrong, LeBron is a special all-round player. He has the ability to dominate scoring when it requires. He has the ability to become a lock down defender when required. He has the ability to dominate by playmaking if possible. It's not necessarily that all-round players are less successful; it's just that all-round players that play that way are less successful as their teams tend to be less balanced. However, if you do get a LeBron or Magic type all round player, they can arguably be more useful as they can play in more positions and dominate different aspects when the circumstance calls for it: the memorable 42-15 when Magic played center springs to mind. They can adapt to different situations and game plans because they can do more than one thing.

Contrast that to Kobe Bryant (boy I didn't want to make this comparison when I joined) who is more known for scoring but is a brilliant passer when he wants to be. Him and Michael Jordan are 'less' well-rounded because they don't possess the physical gifts LeBron does - they aren't as tall or powerful, but they are incredibly skilled and potent scorers, and can both pass the basketball very well when they want to. However, the role that was defined in their team is/was the go-to scorer, and they have both done that very successfully over the years. The only reason Kobe has changed to a more Magic type player over the past few games is that his team isn't doing well and he recognises that he has other dominant players around him.

Overall, however, it's worth bearing in mind that many players are more well-rounded than they appear to be, but that have a specific defined role in that team which makes them seem more one-dimensional than they actually are. Wrt to Quintilianus' post, the line he has drawn between 'one-thing dominant players' and 'all-round players' is more arbitrary than it seems.

[Quintilianus]

Aaaand i stopped reading when the word RING came.
Oh, so the biggest argument in judging players should be abandoned ? I bet you consider barkley being better than Tim Duncan, don't you?

[CeltsGarlic]

Mannng, your so wrong. I didnt even read how wrong are you.


Sveikas.

[Quintilianus]

Mannng, your so wrong. I didnt even read how wrong are you.


Sveikas.
That's it? No contra-arguments?
Gera diena, smagu lietuvį čia matyt

[SilkkTheShocker]

OP got destroyed by LeBron23 :oldlol:

[I.R.Beast]

Theres a reason why teams like russells celtics or spurs are successful teams. Lebron is just lucky to be under sterns regime or else the spurs would have more chips.

And I dont think ball dominant players are not capable of winning. magic is a ball dominant player. Its just that he is a pure pg and not a score first pg. Players who score and pass at the same time are the ones who are detrimental to team ball. Thats why players like AI, arenas are considered cancerous.
Magic played on an extremely stacked team.... which is my point...In order for a ball dominant player to be successful they need a stacked team.

[dh144498]

I'll just report all of your posts, Get a F*cking job.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/member.php?u=3907

Permabanned

/40k posts
:coleman:

[I.R.Beast]

As a disclaimer, the reason LeBron couldn't win in Cleveland (or get further than he did in his playoff appearances) is more to do with the lack of offensive system instilled by Mike Brown rather than his own shortcomings. The team was exposed to a 'give it to LeBron and get out of the way' mentality in the playoffs, and that simply isn't going to work against smarter and more organised teams that could see it coming ten thousand miles away.

I believe that you and Quintilianus are on the right track about all-round players and winning championships, but you've got the wrong end of the stick. I'll use LeBron's recent title run as an example.

LeBron's career regular season averages are around 27-7-7, and we all (hopefully) know that he is at least above average in scoring, rebounding, passing and defending. However, in the playoffs, that average is distorted and the scoring and rebounding is bumped up at the expense of his passing.

The thing is, when push comes to shove, all-round players generally tend to have to play as more specialised players. In that intense Boston series? LeBron abandoned passing and went on an all out scoring assault, ending up with a 33-11-3 average. That's not 'LeBron-esque' - those numbers would suit a dominant center. His playoff averages were 30-10-5. Again, not something you'd see from a typical LeBron James season or series. Now, in the finals, the games lent itself for LeBron to play a more all-round game: he was mostly guarded by a smaller player (Sefolosha/Harden) and commanded a double team in the post, in which case he could dish it out to the spot-up shooters to drain the three. His finals averages were 29-10-7, which are a lot 'more' 'LeBron-esque'.

Let's not get it wrong, LeBron is a special all-round player. He has the ability to dominate scoring when it requires. He has the ability to become a lock down defender when required. He has the ability to dominate by playmaking if possible. It's not necessarily that all-round players are less successful; it's just that all-round players that play that way are less successful as their teams tend to be less balanced. However, if you do get a LeBron or Magic type all round player, they can arguably be more useful as they can play in more positions and dominate different aspects when the circumstance calls for it: the memorable 42-15 when Magic played center springs to mind. They can adapt to different situations and game plans because they can do more than one thing.

Contrast that to Kobe Bryant (boy I didn't want to make this comparison when I joined) who is more known for scoring but is a brilliant passer when he wants to be. Him and Michael Jordan are 'less' well-rounded because they don't possess the physical gifts LeBron does - they aren't as tall or powerful, but they are incredibly skilled and potent scorers, and can both pass the basketball very well when they want to. However, the role that was defined in their team is/was the go-to scorer, and they have both done that very successfully over the years. The only reason Kobe has changed to a more Magic type player over the past few games is that his team isn't doing well and he recognises that he has other dominant players around him.

Overall, however, it's worth bearing in mind that many players are more well-rounded than they appear to be, but that have a specific defined role in that team which makes them seem more one-dimensional than they actually are. Wrt to Quintilianus' post, the line he has drawn between 'one-thing dominant players' and 'all-round players' is more arbitrary than it seems.

Kobe is willing to try anything to win. Him being "pg/go-to-scorer" is hurting more than helping because despite all the assists the ball movement still hasnt been good enough. Kobe has never had to dominate the ball this much before to win since shaq left...it is not working, and it won't work. Because enough hands arent touch the ball, him facilitating takes nash job away from him now he is a spot up shooter with the rest. This is not a recipe for success.

Basketball is a simple sport to understand if you approach it logically man.

The same way you can never get the most out of all your employees if you pile all of the work on 1 them only leaving the rest to minimal amounts of work is the same principal in basketball. The company will suffer because the work load is more evenly distributed and you employees outside of the main one are contributing everything they can to the company to make it work as best as possible. Transpose the NBA team with the COMPANY and maybe you guys will catch the drift. How many teams over the past 20 years have 1 a title with a ball dominating superstar that was setting up every play if he wasnt scoring?..... I'll wait.... i count 2.... LBJ's heat and MAgic's lakers...and what did they have in common?... Stacked teams that made this otherwise disasterous approach to winning championships work.

[Mr Exlax]

Kobe is willing to try anything to win. Him being "pg/go-to-scorer" is hurting more than helping because despite all the assists the ball movement still hasnt been good enough. Kobe has never had to dominate the ball this much before to win since shaq left...it is not working, and it won't work. Because enough hands arent touch the ball, him facilitating takes nash job away from him now he is a spot up shooter with the rest. This is not a recipe for success.

Basketball is a simple sport to understand if you approach it logically man.

The same way you can never get the most out of all your employees if you pile all of the work on 1 them only leaving the rest to minimal amounts of work is the same principal in basketball. The company will suffer because the work load is more evenly distributed and you employees outside of the main one are contributing everything they can to the company to make it work as best as possible. Transpose the NBA team with the COMPANY and maybe you guys will catch the drift. How many teams over the past 20 years have 1 a title with a ball dominating superstar that was setting up every play if he wasnt scoring?..... I'll wait.... i count 2.... LBJ's heat and MAgic's lakers...and what did they have in common?... Stacked teams that made this otherwise disasterous approach to winning championships work.

I pretty much agree with you. I said it from the start that it's not a good thing to see when Lebron leads his team in that many different catagories. That's too much for one man to do. Cleveland Cavs 2.0

[Quintilianus]

Kobe is willing to try anything to win. Him being "pg/go-to-scorer" is hurting more than helping because despite all the assists the ball movement still hasnt been good enough. Kobe has never had to dominate the ball this much before to win since shaq left...it is not working, and it won't work. Because enough hands arent touch the ball, him facilitating takes nash job away from him now he is a spot up shooter with the rest. This is not a recipe for success.

Basketball is a simple sport to understand if you approach it logically man.

The same way you can never get the most out of all your employees if you pile all of the work on 1 them only leaving the rest to minimal amounts of work is the same principal in basketball. The company will suffer because the work load is more evenly distributed and you employees outside of the main one are contributing everything they can to the company to make it work as best as possible. Transpose the NBA team with the COMPANY and maybe you guys will catch the drift. How many teams over the past 20 years have 1 a title with a ball dominating superstar that was setting up every play if he wasnt scoring?..... I'll wait.... i count 2.... LBJ's heat and MAgic's lakers...and what did they have in common?... Stacked teams that made this otherwise disasterous approach to winning championships work.

I laugh at the thought that nash is being misused.
They have been using him as a full time ball dominant pg just when he came back from his injury, kobe had even more shots, because nash would find him, and kobe, being a player with probably the highest bball iq in the league surprisingly was a great off-ball player. Ir worked for a few games, but then lakers met their downfall yet again and kobe reinvented them with his magic mamba few weeks. Since then, Lakers have looked like an above average team. So the moral of this post is that when nash was a ball dominant PG the offense was much more centered around kobe, I mean he had that 41FGA game, and everybody who watched will say that he wasn't dominating the ball that game.

[Jailblazers7]

This is one of the top 5 worst threads I have ever seen.

[SamuraiSWISH]

I get what the thread creator is saying though, sometimes jack of all trades ... master of none types don't always get the job done. Because they have no speciality. Guys like MJ, Kobe, Bird, Wade ... they did everything well, have great all around games. But they could still go flip a switch and be the absolute best player on the floor at a certain aspect of the game IE scoring.

Pippen was a jack of all trades, and did nadda in 1994 with a motivated Bulls squad sans MJ who took the league by surprise. And then was struggling to stay above .500 without Jordan the next season. Why? He didn't have elite scoring abilities.

Thus kind of a glimpse into LeBron's 2010 and 2011 failures. He had a very limited offensive game. It was either transition dunk, or jacking a three off the dribble.

In 2012, he improved footwork, post game, his aggressive mentality and added a pinch post reliable post game ... and he finally started to develop a consistent mid range-ish scoring game. And BAM ... wins his first ring.

[longtime lurker]

Are you longtime lurker or Ne 1?

Tha ****?

:biggums:

[LikeABosh]

http://http://silellak.com/lets_play/WhatTheHellYouTalkingAbout.gif

[knicksman]

Magic played on an extremely stacked team.... which is my point...In order for a ball dominant player to be successful they need a stacked team.

I dont think so.. Kareem was past his prime.