Spot up shooters: Player A, B, C, D, E or F...

[plowking]

Who would you take on your team as a guy who comes in for 20-30 minutes and nails a couple shots, maybe creates a little offense, etc.

Player A: 8/2/2 on 51/49/85 in 20 minutes.
Player B: 11/4/2 on 47/46/89 in 30 minutes.
Player C: 10/3/2 on 45/40/89 in 25 minutes.
Player D: 10/3/2 on 42/39/86 in 25 minutes.
Player E: 11/2/4 on 48/42/86 in 30 minutes.
Player F: 10/3/4 on 43/37/77 in 30 minutes.

Out of these guys, players D and F have above average defensive abilities for further reference, which make up for their lack of efficiency. D plays slightly better man to man defense, can take on assignments, while F has busy hands and gets into lanes.
The rest are more or less strict shooters, with slight playmaking roles, though mainly run their sets and try and get open. Do you take the guys who are most efficient, or ones who can give you a little more burn and a few more points? They are all similar defensively, below average, unlike D and F.

[wally_world]

Player A or C

Seem like better roleplayers who contribute efficiently in limited minutes

[Prime_Shaq]

I would take player D. The formula for winning right now is having a bunch of 3 AND D guys, emphasis on the D. Take the Thunder for example, apart for the out worldly talents that KD and Westbrook are, their team is completed by guys who can either shoot the 3 OR defend and that formula just doesn't work.

[Smoke117]

I'd rather ground them all into meat paste for future Spam.

[Pursuer]

All dependant on what you already have. What's the point of starting a team thinking about the 6-7th guy.

[sdot_thadon]

Without knowing much else, d is the safe bet in the modern league. I will say however if I already have a top defense without said player, I'd maybe take a chance on a or c.

[catch24]

I'd rather ground them all into meat paste for future Spam.

:oldlol:

Depending on my starting lineup, I would take either A or D.

A gives you much needed shooting off the bench assuming your starters lack that, whereas D gives you playmaking, defense and a bit of shooting (idea with D is to give individual perimeter defense your starters might lack, and spacing the floor would be icing on the cake).

[imdaman99]

I would take player D. The formula for winning right now is having a bunch of 3 AND D guys, emphasis on the D. Take the Thunder for example, apart for the out worldly talents that KD and Westbrook are, their team is completed by guys who can either shoot the 3 OR defend and that formula just doesn't work.
Word, they need 3 and D. Right now they have 3 or D :oldlol:

Shane Battier, James Posey, Bruce Bowen...they never find them.

[plowking]

Word, they need 3 and D. Right now they have 3 or D :oldlol:

Shane Battier, James Posey, Bruce Bowen...they never find them.

Not that level of defender. Above average.

Think for example someone like George Hill level defensively.

[Prime_Shaq]

Not that level of defender. Above average.

Think for example someone like George Hill level defensively.
Yeah but I believe my point still stands

[aj1987]

Word, they need 3 and D. Right now they have 3 or D :oldlol:

Shane Battier, James Posey, Bruce Bowen...they never find them.
Strictly role-players? Danny, DeMarre, Ariza, Iman, Korver (he's actually a good defender), etc..

Posey was basically an average 3pt shooter. He wasn't an elite defender as well, although he did amazing on the '06 Heat team. Through the strict definition of 3&D (good-elite defender and above average 3pt shooter), those players fit the definition.

If we don't include role-players, we have Kawhi, Klay, Buckets, and a couple of others.