Why do "role players" get full credit for losses and no credit for victories????

[97 bulls]

I can't believe some if you guys. Whats so special about winning as the "man"???? All the pressure seems to be on the role players.

I just read a poster blame every player and circumstance for the Lakers loosing to the Pistons in 04. Except Kobe. And let's be honest, he played bad.

Lakers loose, Pau Gasol is soft. They win it cuz of Kobe. Minimal credit is given to the rest of the team. No matter how well they played.

The Bulls win, its cuz of Jordan. They loose like in 90, its Pippens fault. He plays great, doesnt matter cuz he wasn't the Bulls best player. The same can be applied to Dennis Rodman in 96.

The Heat lose in 11. Its James fault. I assume because Wade was the man. The Heat loose in 14, its Wades fault. Because now the roles have swithched and James is now the man.

You guys dont see the clear agenda????

[Vaniiiia]

What are you blabbering on about you illiterate moron?

[kennethgriffin]

kobe had a torn shoulder and knee

larry brown admited he would let shaq get his and put all effort in stopping kobe

it was a 2 man team after malone was injured, payton shot horribly and was a shell of his former self





but as for blame. why do some people put it all on kobe for 2004 then say he deserves no credit for the 3 he won with shaq


its all agenda driven biased garbage..

[kennethgriffin]

and besides all that. most kobe fans agree losing in 2004 enabled kobe to win 2 without shaq

so it was a blessing in disguise

[97 bulls]

kobe had a torn shoulder and knee

larry brown admited he would let shaq get his and put all effort in stopping kobe

it was a 2 man team after malone was injured, payton shot horribly and was a shell of his former self






but as for blame. why do some people put it all on kobe for 2004 then say he deserves no credit for the 3 he won with shaq


its all agenda driven biased garbage..
I agree with the bold. However, when it comes to Shaq and Kobe the argument seems to stem from Kobe fans saying he was as good or better than Shaq after 01. But even still, they dont win without Bryant during the early 00s.

[97 bulls]

and besides all that. most kobe fans agree losing in 2004 enabled kobe to win 2 without shaq

so it was a blessing in disguise
Yeah but it probably cost them three championships together.

[Jailblazers7]

OP only really applies to ISH. Win or lose, the topics of conversation on ESPN and at sports bars will be Lebron/Kobe/Durant/etc.

[ArbitraryWater]

I dont even know what to say to this garbage OP.... the argument could literally be construted the absolute other way around. Quit this shit, dont post in it anymore, forgot this topic...

hint: its a case by case thing

[Kblaze8855]

Id say its fairly simple. If you outplay all your teammates and win you had the most to do with victory if we are going to give out individual credit. If you outplay everyone and lose....you did the most to prevent it. And should be given the least blame for the loss.

Every other way to look at it is emotionally driven...not an issue of logic.

Blaming the person who played best is just irrational. As is crediting individuals who played worse when they win.

It goes against the whole "If he gets the credit he gets the blame!" thing....but thats frankly...always been ****ing idiotic.

I outplay 10 guys...I had the most to do with winning. I outplay 10 guys...I did the most to prevent losing.

Fairly obvious.

The problem comes from when the star plays poorly and loses while some role players arguably outplay him. Then we can get into who gets the blame.

[97 bulls]

Id say its fairly simple. If you outplay all your teammates and win you had the most to do with victory if we are going to give out individual credit. If you outplay everyone and lose....you did the most to prevent it. And should be given the least blame for the loss.

Every other way to look at it is emotionally driven...not an issue of logic.

Blaming the person who played best is just irrational. As is crediting individuals who played worse when they win.

It goes against the whole "If he gets the credit he gets the blame!" thing....but thats frankly...always been ****ing idiotic.

I outplay 10 guys...I had the most to do with winning. I outplay 10 guys...I did the most to prevent losing.

Fairly obvious.

The problem comes from when the star plays poorly and loses while some role players arguably outplay him. Then we can get into who gets the blame.
Except when (and this more often than not happens) the whole team plays well. And thats my point. Its not a matter of outplaying. Its a matter of each member doing their job. Pau Gasol can avg 20/10 and not get full credit for his efforts because he wasn't the teams best player. Oh but let him not play well. And hes gonna get the business. Why is that?

Amd what constitutes "out playing"? In organized ball, plays are run. And they are run with the intention on the best player getting the best shots in his sweet spot. On ultra talented teams, this often mean that other great players must sacrifice their strengths to make things easier for the teams best player. Look at what happened to Chris Bosh. Or Kobe and Shaq. I firmly believe Scottie Pippen never reached his potential. Even though it maximized his success. And ive seen it go the other way. Ive seen great players be carried by their team during a game or series. Dirk Nowtzki did no have a great Finals. But everyone else stepped up. But he gets all the credit.

I just wanna see consistency.

[Kblaze8855]

Greatest contributor would probably be a better way of puting it than outplayed.

Anyway...

Most of it stems from the idea that the way to tell who the best is is...who won what, how many times, and in what role. Which is mostly done because people are lazy and dont know shit about basketball.

Thats a problem much deeper and harder to address.

[sdot_thadon]

A shit load of fans are prisoners to their biases too unfortunately. So the rules change depending on who needs propping up or tearing down at that particular moment. For the record the leader does deserve most credit for leading their squad to the promised land though. The sidekicks and role players deserve to be recognized as well but it definitely changes by the case. Real subjective stuff.

[97 bulls]

A shit load of fans are prisoners to their biases too unfortunately. So the rules change depending on who needs propping up or tearing down at that particular moment. For the record the leader does deserve most credit for leading their squad to the promised land though. The sidekicks and role players deserve to be recognized as well but it definitely changes by the case. Real subjective stuff.
Then they should also take the brunt of the blame for losses.

And I agree. It is subjective. But then why knock Chris Bosh (for example) when he was basically relegated to being a three point shooter? That's not his game. Pau Gasol as well.

[Naero]

I will preface this by reiterating others' statements in the subjectivity of this question, but the obvious answer to your personal experiences...

Who has more fans: the superstars or role-players? The biggest correlator to praise and apologism is obviously fandom, so they want them to be recognized for team-associated success regardless of the causal significance behind the win—whether the superstar carried them or if the role-players stepped up.

Fans naturally will deflect attention away from the superstar whenever their team loses, as they do not want to hear how it will sully their legacy due to how team-associated success factors into a player's legacy evaluatedly, so of course they will look to accentuate any other contributors on the team that didn't step up—not just other players, but also the coach as well (see: Mike D'Antoni in 2012-13).

On the flipside, any pronouncedly renowned player will also have their fair share of haters, because the more impactful one is in the NBA, the more likely they are to pose a threat to a fan's agenda (eg: Kobe stans feeling fretful that he will be surpassed by newer-generation players); as such, it is just as likely that you'll see that same superstar being scapegoated for the loss, regardless of how his supporting cast performed.

Reiterating, it is still too anecdotal for it to be considered a widely espoused notion, but the only sweeping answer there is to either side of the coin is that the more impactful a player is, the more attention they receive. Whether that attention spawns favorable or disfavorable narratives on them depends on the agenda of the narrator, but the superstars will remain as the centerpoint of most agendas; resultantly, the role-players will either be scapegoated or absolved when it pertains to painting the picture on the superstar's culpability or inculpability in the loss.

Bottom line is that many NBA "fans" are captivated more by individual superstars rather than teamwork-oriented success; as such, they'll be faster to throw role-players under the bus in favor of the superstars than they will be to show any appreciation to the role-players' contributions to a win.

[sdot_thadon]

Then they should also take the brunt of the blame for losses.

And I agree. It is subjective. But then why knock Chris Bosh (for example) when he was basically relegated to being a three point shooter? That's not his game. Pau Gasol as well.
They should only take the brunt of the blame if they were the reason the team came up short. I only think role players should take blame when they disappear or totally blow a situation. On the heat for example there were instances where bosh didn't make an impact and he could get a piece of the blame but I never felt you could put an entire series or run on him alone. Lebron blew it big time in 2011. Hell kobe has had a couple of times where you could put it on him. Gasol, not so much. Similar to bosh it was a time where he could have given a bigger impact but didn't . Some people just aren't reasonable.


Oh and the post above? This.

[kennethgriffin]

Yeah but it probably cost them three championships together.


2 championships without shaq cemented his other 3

winning 6 all with shaq and 0 without him wouldnt be as nice



even shaqs crap title in 2006 averaging less than antoine walker in the finals was worth more than getting 6 ... 3 with and 1 without helped him aswell


in the end both kobe and shaq had to win without each other to get away from any criticism


its best that they split up and left 1 or 2 on the table

[TheBigVeto]

OP is dumb. Gasol is not a role player. He was the real #1 option for the Lakers back in 2009 and 2010. Kobe just took all the credit.