How important is consistency?

[iamgine]

Lets say there's 2 supermax players, A and B.

Player A's impact is consistently at 7/10. Never had a bad game, but never amazing either.

Player B's impact is consistently inconsistent. Every night it's a 50-50 chance whether his impact would be a 10/10 or a 4/10.

Which player would you rather have as franchise player?

[Im Still Ballin]

I don't know how to answer that. 7/10, probably. Consistency is a value-add; however, a 10/10 game is, theoretically speaking, perfect. It takes more than one player to win but a 10/10 game puts you in a position to do so. It only takes four wins in a playoff series. But I don't like my chances of doing that sixteen times out of a potential twenty-eight.

[Akeem34TheDream]

Numbers don't mean much here. It depends on the examples. I would rather have AD than Adebayo but might pick the more consistent players in other comparisons. What I would say is great coaches help with inconsistent players more. They can deal with their emotions/egos better and help them perform their potentials.

[Full Court]

If you want to go deep into the playoffs, it's player A. Who would you rather have as your franchise player, Jokic or Embiid?

[Kblaze8855]

If you want to go deep into the playoffs, it's player A. Who would you rather have as your franchise player, Jokic or Embiid?


Jokic has gigantic games though.

[ShawkFactory]

A better example would be Embiid against maybe prime Horford.

[Baller234]

Consistency is the ultimate measure of one's greatness.

[3ba11]

A player isn't a franchise player if they frequently drop to a "4" caliber

Elite production capability and consistency of this production is what defines a franchise player

[elementally morale]

I'm going with 7/10 easily. But if it would be 8/10 vs. 6/10 or 10/10 I'd probably switch sides.

[Wally450]

Player B could be Jayson Tatum. Some games he'll go off for 40, some games he can't even make a layup.

I'm still taking player B, because I'd rather have a guy that can have a 10/10 game in a big moment.

[John8204]

This is basically position based, if it's a forward or shooting guard you can deal with inconsistency if it's your point or center you want consistency.

[tpols]

If you think about it in a playoff series you only need to win 4/7 so you could theoretically play great only a little more than half the time and still win. People shit on AD for his inconsistency yet in the 2023 WCFs against Denver he averaged 27/14 on great efficiency while being the best defensive player on either team. That should have been enough to win but Jokic just went GOAT mode.

Another example is kyrie in the 2016 finals... he sucked for like the first 4 games and then outplayed (destroyed really) a UMVP player. When shit inevitably gets tight you want the 10/10 guy when it matters.

[hold this L]

If you think about it in a playoff series you only need to win 4/7 so you could theoretically play great only a little more than half the time and still win. People shit on AD for his inconsistency yet in the 2023 WCFs against Denver he averaged 27/14 on great efficiency while being the best defensive player on either team. That should have been enough to win but Jokic just went GOAT mode.

Another example is kyrie in the 2016 finals... he sucked for like the first 4 games and then outplayed (destroyed really) a UMVP player. When shit inevitably gets tight you want the 10/10 guy when it matters.

Well, Murray averaged 33PPG on 65% TS. So yeah Jokic was amazing but his second option was basically prime Kobe in that series. :lol

[tpols]

Well, Murray averaged 33PPG on 65% TS. So yeah Jokic was amazing but his second option was basically prime Kobe in that series. :lol

Yea that's true too.

That Laker Nugget series was the closest played sweep I've ever seen. LA was up double digits in two of the games looking like it'd be a blowout and they choked in the 4thQ.

[FultzNationRISE]

Consistency is the ultimate measure of one's greatness.


10 conference championships :rockon:

[hold this L]

Yea that's true too.

That Laker Nugget series was the closest played sweep I've ever seen. LA was up double digits in two of the games looking like it'd be a blowout and they choked in the 4thQ.
Celtics Nets was closer but both are very close.

[3ba11]

Yea that's true too.

That Laker Nugget series was the closest played sweep I've ever seen. LA was up double digits in two of the games looking like it'd be a blowout and they choked in the 4thQ.


Indeed, Lebron has many series losses where the series had many close games in the 4th quarter

the 07' Finals, 09' ECF, 23' WCF, 10' ECSF, 11' Finals and more - he lost about 80 fourth quarter leads in these series.. it's because his ball-dominant brand of ball is extremely predictable and gets stifled in high-leverage minutes..

The trend of Lebron scoring less in high-leverage minutes occurs in blowouts too - the 14' Finals showed Lebron scoring 1.1 points per minute when the Heat were down 15 or more, but only 0.65 points when the game was less than 15 points... There's never been a more "empty stats" player in the history of the game.

[Full Court]

Jokic has gigantic games though.

Of course, but he's generally pretty consistent.

Lack of consistency is my biggest criticism of Embiid (besides his flopping).

Since they've been MVP rivals for a couple years, I thinks its a pretty good comparison to answer the question in this thread.