Better player vs more impactful player? Is there a difference?

[jlip]

When you do player comparisons do you make a distinction between a better player and a more impactful player, or are they essentially the same to you? Does having a greater impact influence whom you consider to be better? And when I refer to impact, I am alluding strictly to what happens on the court during the game not off the court, culture, dress, or society.

To me the textbook example of this is KD vs Curry. Most people consider KD to be a better individual player than Curry. While they will concede that, they will also say that Curry's on the court "gravity" and style of play impacts a game more so and in ways that KD's doesn't.

That was just an example, and without turning this into a player X vs player Y comparison thread, again, do you make a distinction between the two labels, "better" vs "more impactful"?

[Kobe_Bryant]

basically the difference between me and shaq in 2001 and 2002. I was better. he was more impactful due to his size and position. plus nobody in the finals could .atchup with him physically so he hijacked finals mvp after I carried him all year

[NBAGOAT]

not as much as other people. For some people I think better means being more skilled or better at more facets of the game but I dont make that distinction. If you're dominant at a few things like curry, you can just be better than most well rounded scorers.

I do think this can come up when we're talking about the regular season because many stars dont give 100% effort during the regular season. a guy can be more impactful than someone else during the regular season just because he's giving more effort. the other guy will be better and more impactful during the playoffs

[Overdrive]

basically the difference between me and shaq in 2001 and 2002. I was better. he was more impactful due to his size and position. plus nobody in the finals could .atchup with him physically so he hijacked finals mvp after I carried him all year

Whats the Lakers record during those years Shaq w/o Kobe et vice versa?

[RRR3]

Whats the Lakers record during those years Shaq w/o Kobe et vice versa?
Rip Kenny.

[iamgine]

"Better" is usually about your combination of strength and weaknesses (skill, size, vision, etc).

"More impactful" is about how you use those strengths and mask weaknesses.

Imagine you're Curry. You can just jack up shots and freeze your teammates and never set up screens. And you'd be justified for it. Or you could use your gravity to free up teammates, be a decoy, etc so that your impact to the game overall is probably higher than if you just jack up shots.

[Axe]

Stephen curry was only good for the 9th seed last season after b2b losses in the losers bracket, despite some help from former all-star in draymond green. As well as 2nd pick james wiseman, rising star andrew wiggins, small veteran kent bazemore and new splash bro kelly ">klay" oubre jr.

[000]

Stephen curry was only good for the 8th seed last season after b2b losses in the losers bracket, despite some help from former all-star in draymond green. As well as 2nd pick james wiseman, rising star andrew wiggins, small veteran kent bazemore and new splash bro kelly ">klay" oubre jr.Fixed

[HBK_Kliq_2]

Nope, no difference. That's just a fancy term they put on guys like curry to make up for his 0 finals mvps, Duncan or Garnett also for not being all-time great offensive players.

Kawhi is still better and more impactful then all the guys I've brought into the discussion ☝

[Axe]

Fixed
Wrong. I indicated 'after b2b losses in the losers bracket'.

Fix your eyes, chico. Thank you.

[hold this L]

Nope, no difference. That's just a fancy term they put on guys like curry to make up for his 0 finals mvps, Duncan or Garnett also for not being all-time great offensive players.

Kawhi is still better and more impactful then all the guys I've brought into the discussion ☝

Imagine blowing a 3-1 lead to a Serbian Windhorst

https://c.tenor.com/Z9O6sGo6wCcAAAAd/oof-old-man.gif

[000]

Wrong. I indicated 'after b2b losses in the losers bracket'.

Fix your eyes, chico. Thank you.
He was good for the 8th seed, period. What you said didnt make sense. Fake ass Silver forcing GSW to play extra games doesnt mean anything

[Axe]

He was good for the 8th seed, period. What you said didnt make sense. Fake ass Silver forcing GSW to play extra games doesnt mean anything
Meltdown. Don't act as if they're the only team who were a victim of this. Remember, kong's lakers had to undergo the same as well except they won in a convincing fashion against them so they had truly clinched as the 7th seed.

[000]

Meltdown. Don't act as if they're the only team who were a victim of this. Remember, kong's lakers had to undergo the same as well except they won in a convincing fashion against them so they had truly clinched as the 7th seed.
Play-in is fake. Keep believing tho

[Axe]

Play-in is fake. Keep believing tho
Fake yet it happened. Keep rejecting tho.

[000]

Fake yet it happened. Keep rejecting tho.

Play-in is fake. Keep believing tho

[Axe]

Play-in is fake. Keep believing tho
Baloney!

[000]

Baloney!

Play-in is fake bullcrаp. Keep believing tho

[Axe]

Play-in is fake bullcrаp. Keep believing tho
Keep whining. 9th seed at best without klay. :roll:

[000]

Keep whining. 9th seed at best without klay. :roll:
Nope. Play-in is fake bullcrаp. Keep believing tho

[Axe]

Nope. Play-in is fake bullcrаp. Keep believing tho
A shot that sealed their fate last May. :party:

https://i.postimg.cc/ht2Wz8mw/ledagger-over-curry.gif

But yeah, keep on whining kid.

[000]

A shot that sealed their fate last May. :party:

https://i.postimg.cc/ht2Wz8mw/ledagger-over-curry.gif

Nope. Play-in is fake bullcrаp. Keep believing tho

Curry made the 8th seed with just Gaymond. Unbelievable

[Axe]

Nope. Play-in is fake bullcrаp. Keep believing tho

Curry made the 8th seed with just Gaymond. Unbelievable
He also led gs to b2b losses in the losers bracket. The first in league history. But again, keep on whining tho.

[Phoenix]

basically the difference between me and shaq in 2001 and 2002. I was better. he was more impactful due to his size and position. plus nobody in the finals could .atchup with him physically so he hijacked finals mvp after I carried him all year

After the carry job he did in 2000 you owed him a few.

[000]

He also led gs to b2b losses in the losers bracket. The first in league history. But again, keep on whining tho.

Nope. Play-in is fake bullcrаp. Keep believing tho

Curry made the 8th seed with just Gaymond. Unbelievable

[Axe]

Nope. Play-in is fake bullcrаp. Keep believing tho

Curry made the 8th seed with just Gaymond. Unbelievable
No klay, no play. Go figure.

[000]

No klay, no play. Go figure.:facepalm

[ShawkFactory]

"Better" is usually about your combination of strength and weaknesses (skill, size, vision, etc).

"More impactful" is about how you use those strengths and mask weaknesses.

Imagine you're Curry. You can just jack up shots and freeze your teammates and never set up screens. And you'd be justified for it. Or you could use your gravity to free up teammates, be a decoy, etc so that your impact to the game overall is probably higher than if you just jack up shots.
That second version of curry is then “better” in my eyes.

The mental aspect of the game is a big part of it.

[Phoenix]

That second version of curry is then “better” in my eyes.

The mental aspect of the game is a big part of it.

That above description you're replying is why I feel Curry is more 'impactful' than KD if you gave them equal talent. The other players on the floor are a much greater threat which elevates the entire team. We've seen Draymond without Steph for example....not pretty. But then pair him with Steph ( and Klay) and he's an all-NBA 2nd-3rd team/ DPOY level player. KD isn't pulling that out of Dray.

[iamgine]

That second version of curry is then “better” in my eyes.

The mental aspect of the game is a big part of it.

They're both the same player.

[ShawkFactory]

They're both the same player.

If Steph played differently and wasn't as intelligent about maximizing his strengths and minimizing his weaknesses for the betterment of the team...that's a worse player. Even if the abilities/skills are exactly the same.

[k0kakw0rld]

Logically, the better player is the one whose impact is more felt than his competition.

[Kblaze8855]

Totally different things. Impact is a matter of the situation you are in. How good you are doesn’t change…how effective you are can be altered through rules, coaching, teammates, and other factors.

Bill Russell coming along when teams were just realizing that scoring wasn’t all that matters made him way more impactful as an outlier than Hakeem could be in later times when the whole league had learned its lesson.

Plenty of people are more impactful internationally with the different defensive rules.

Obviously Steph Curry is the same human in any era but the same shots taken in 1975 would result in fewer points and less impact.

A Mike Dantoni offense could reduce the impact of a low post scoring big….but his ability is the same.

A redundant teammate can reduce your impact but not your ability.


Impact is your ability plus your situation. How good you are is absolutely nothing but your ability at the moment.

[j3lademaster]

9/10 the most impactful player and the best player are one in the same. There are occasions where a more impactful player fills a more needed niche. Example: Donovan Mitchell is probably better than Gobert, but Gobert had 6.5 rapm and is worth 16.5 wins; whereas Mitchell had a 2.5 rapm and is worth 4-5 wins. But the top dogs are going to be the best player and most impactful: Lebron most years, prime Dwight, Curry etc.

[Kobe_Bryant]

Whats the Lakers record during those years Shaq w/o Kobe et vice versa?

I just said I wasn't as impactful due to shaqs position. Greg foster wasn't a good backup so we struggled without shaq. bigs used to be important 20 years ago. and when you build your team around them and don't have any backups you have no way to match-up with any other team.

why am I even explaining myself when I agreed that I wasn't as impactful as shaq. are you blind. why are you even arguing with me you f*ckin nitwit

[iamgine]

If Steph played differently and wasn't as intelligent about maximizing his strengths and minimizing his weaknesses for the betterment of the team...that's a worse player. Even if the abilities/skills are exactly the same.

No no they're the same player. Curry don't always play well. But how good he is doesn't change. Sometimes he shoot 1-10. Does that make him a worse shooter than when he made 9-10? No but it makes his impact less for the game.

[MadDog]

There is. One could bring more impact to their team (and it'll show in the numbers) although it doesn't make him "better" than the guy with higher quality teammates. The latter is playing on a superior team that doesn't require maxed out numbers. Watching that player, though, you know he's got game and brings a lot to the table.

Which is why watching games > reading stats. I do both, but the eye test trumps all.

[ArbitraryWater]

No.

[ShawkFactory]

No no they're the same player. Curry don't always play well. But how good he is doesn't change. Sometimes he shoot 1-10. Does that make him a worse shooter than when he made 9-10? No but it makes his impact less for the game.

I'm not talking about game-to-game variability. That's always going to happen regardless of how good or impactful a player is. Someone's skills are always the same no matter the day-to-day percentage changes.

To me it's an over-arching pattern as to how a particular player approaches the game in his situation.

Kobe jacked up a bunch of shots in 06 and 07, and because of the way the team was structured it probably was the appropriate thing to do for the most part. He didn't do that the following year because the circumstances changed. Therefore he changed his approach to fit with his situation to be as impactful as he could possibly be for his team.

If Steph all of a sudden started taking horrible shots on those dominant Warriors, and this is just how he played? Then that player is not as good as the Steph we've seen picking and choosing his spots to maximize what he and his team can do. Even though his skills are the same his approach is different and his impact is going to be diminished.

[ShawkFactory]

Totally different things. Impact is a matter of the situation you are in. How good you are doesn’t change…how effective you are can be altered through rules, coaching, teammates, and other factors.

Bill Russell coming along when teams were just realizing that scoring wasn’t all that matters made him way more impactful as an outlier than Hakeem could be in later times when the whole league had learned its lesson.

Plenty of people are more impactful internationally with the different defensive rules.

Obviously Steph Curry is the same human in any era but the same shots taken in 1975 would result in fewer points and less impact.

A Mike Dantoni offense could reduce the impact of a low post scoring big….but his ability is the same.

A redundant teammate can reduce your impact but not your ability.


Impact is your ability plus your situation. How good you are is absolutely nothing but your ability at the moment.

But what if someone doesn't have the mindset to fit their game into a situation as well as someone else? Those two guys can have the same ability in a vacuum but I wouldn't say the rigid guy is as good.

[Kblaze8855]

Well sure you have jerks and people who are just difficult in general but that isn’t exactly an ability issue. That’s one of the variables I’d include in being valuable or having a positive impact.

[ArbitraryWater]

Totally different things. Impact is a matter of the situation you are in. How good you are doesn’t change…how effective you are can be altered through rules, coaching, teammates, and other factors.

Bill Russell coming along when teams were just realizing that scoring wasn’t all that matters made him way more impactful as an outlier than Hakeem could be in later times when the whole league had learned its lesson.

Plenty of people are more impactful internationally with the different defensive rules.

Obviously Steph Curry is the same human in any era but the same shots taken in 1975 would result in fewer points and less impact.

A Mike Dantoni offense could reduce the impact of a low post scoring big….but his ability is the same.

A redundant teammate can reduce your impact but not your ability.


Impact is your ability plus your situation. How good you are is absolutely nothing but your ability at the moment.


The player with more impact in a season will always be better.

At least for that season.

Its impossible not to.

Its not akin to the MVP unequal to BITW analogy, because someone might provide more value on an opportune team where as the better player can only raise the ceiling by a bit.

The better player will always have more impact within the game.

Try to find an example where this is not the case. You won't.

(And I'm obviously not talking about nitpicking singular games, we know the best isnt always the best every game, just the majority of them. Hope I didnt need to qualify that)

[ShawkFactory]

Well sure you have jerks and people who are just difficult in general but that isn’t exactly an ability issue. That’s one of the variables I’d include in being valuable or having a positive impact.

Right but you're then essentially saying that "good" just equals ability.

I think that mindset and court IQ (however you want to quantify that) play a role in good.

[Overdrive]

I just said I wasn't as impactful due to shaqs position. Greg foster wasn't a good backup so we struggled without shaq. bigs used to be important 20 years ago. and when you build your team around them and don't have any backups you have no way to match-up with any other team.

why am I even explaining myself when I agreed that I wasn't as impactful as shaq. are you blind. why are you even arguing with me you f*ckin nitwit

You're really retarded, aren't. You said Kobe carried Shaq. How can the less impactful player carry the other? The record clearly shows who carried who. Also Kobe wasn't the better player either.

[Kobe_Bryant]

You're really retarded, aren't. You said Kobe carried Shaq. How can the less impactful player carry the other? The record clearly shows who carried who. Also Kobe wasn't the better player either.

I did carry shaq vs the tough teams. I saved him in 2000 wcf vs Portland. then dominated the blazers, kings and spurs in 2001. then the spurs again in 2002 and equalled shaq vs Sacramento.

as valuable as shaq is he tended to choke when there was pressure. he only dominated the easy series like in the finals


when it was every other team shaq was clearly more impactful because he could score at will vs bums. he only needed me when it was difficult

[dankok8]

The term "better" can be used in many different contexts. Better in one-on-one game, more skilled, more individually dominant etc. but none of those means you have more impact on our team. To me personally, better means more impactful because any NBA player discussion for me is within the framework of winning games and championships. Everything else is BS.

[Kobe_Bryant]

The term "better" can be used in many different contexts. Better in one-on-one game, more skilled, more individually dominant etc. but none of those means you have more impact on our team. To me personally, better means more impactful because any NBA player discussion for me is within the framework of winning games and championships. Everything else is BS.

better means skills, transferable talent over eras. pound for pound ability. if you can dominate at any size etc...

that's why shaq called me the best and himself the most dominant

and also why shaq says me and Jordan are the goats and big men dont belong in that convo

[MadDog]

The term "better" can be used in many different contexts. Better in one-on-one game, more skilled, more individually dominant etc. but none of those means you have more impact on our team. To me personally, better means more impactful because any NBA player discussion for me is within the framework of winning games and championships. Everything else is BS.

Impactful to their teams, I agree. But those dudes generally have a larger role. What if another player with equal ability is on a team where going all out (statistically) isn't conducive to winning.

[ClipperRevival]

Glancing quickly over this thread, surprised no one mentioned Dray/Steph.

Peak Dray was very impactful with all of the things he brought to the table. Steph is their best player but you could argue Dray was their most impactful player on many a nights.

Ditto for someone like Rodman/Isiah. Any 3rd wheel like a Dray/Rodman who checks so many boxes are super impactful, even though a lot of it doesn't show up in the box score.

[hold this L]

Glancing quickly over this thread, surprised no one mentioned Dray/Steph.

Peak Dray was very impactful with all of the things he brought to the table. Steph is their best player but you could argue Dray was their most impactful player on many a nights.

Ditto for someone like Rodman/Isiah. Any 3rd wheel like a Dray/Rodman who checks so many boxes are super impactful, even though a lot of it doesn't show up in the box score.

You have to be mentally challanged to think Draymond is more impactful. You realize when Curry went out 2 seasons ago, they literally finished as the worst team in the league with Draymond, right dumbass? :facepalm

[ClipperRevival]

You have to be mentally challanged to think Draymond is more impactful. You realize when Curry went out 2 seasons ago, they literally finished as the worst team in the league with Draymond, right dumbass? :facepalm

Reading comprehension much? Re-read what I said.

[Kblaze8855]

The player with more impact in a season will always be better.

At least for that season.

Its impossible not to.

Its not akin to the MVP unequal to BITW analogy, because someone might provide more value on an opportune team where as the better player can only raise the ceiling by a bit.

The better player will always have more impact within the game.

Try to find an example where this is not the case. You won't.

(And I'm obviously not talking about nitpicking singular games, we know the best isnt always the best every game, just the majority of them. Hope I didnt need to qualify that)



Drop Larry Bird onto the 96 Bulls. He would absolutely have less impact than he would on the 96 Pistons paired with Hill.

How much impact could he have on a team that wins 72 and the ring without him? What are they gonna win 79 and get 2 rings at once? No. He’s just extra. His value and impact have a lot more factors than just how good he is.

His impact would be much more felt on an average team. His ability wouldn’t be any greater.

[j3lademaster]

Glancing quickly over this thread, surprised no one mentioned Dray/Steph.

Peak Dray was very impactful with all of the things he brought to the table. Steph is their best player but you could argue Dray was their most impactful player on many a nights.No. Steph is currently the most impactful individual in the entire league.

[jalbert009]

basically the difference between me and shaq in 2001 and 2002. I was better. he was more impactful due to his size and position. plus nobody in the finals could .atchup with him physically so he hijacked finals mvp after I carried him all year

This is a good example. And this can also be true for bench players. There are probably a lot of better bench players than their starting role team mates but the starters might have better chemistry with the rest of the team thus better impact and more wins.

On that Note though, All players in that Lakers team benefited from Shaq s presence getting those double and triple teams. It was easy pickings for the wide open player once Shaq passes out. While Kobe was more skillful, Shaq was the focal point of that Team offence and other teams defence.