RealGM

Posted: **Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:14 pm**

Let's say in a hypothetical situation, a player comes along who can shoot the ball EXTREMELY well, even in terms of NBA standards. I'm talking about long range shots and three-point shots falling at an 80-90% rate. But that's literally ALL he can do. He's a liability on defense, can't rebound, can't dribble, but give him that ball and he'll jack up a shot and score it.

Basically he has the ugliest and most boring game in the NBA, but it translates into wins. And let's say the team's strategy involves getting him open and letting him sink shots all night long which would translate to about 40-50 PPG (assuming he takes 20 shots a game at just over 80% would give him 16 made field goals, assuming 5 or so of those are three-pointers, that averages to about 45 PPG without any free throws).

And you're the coach. Would you rather have this player on your team who can essentially jack up a shot from anywhere on the court and get it in almost all the time, translating into ugly wins? Or would you rather have a more traditional star on your team, who has an all-around game but can't guarantee as many wins?

So basically the question is, would you rather have a boring star who can guarantee wins and championships or an exciting star who definitely helps the team but cannot give you the same guarantee in terms of his game translating into team success?

Posted: **Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:15 pm**

I wouldn't have him as my first option. Still would be nice in an instant offense role.

Posted: **Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:19 pm**

As the coach, why would I care if the star is boring or not? All I care about is wins

Posted: **Thu Dec 13, 2012 6:16 pm**

The question of whether wins or flashy play are more important is kind of moot. Every home team fan would prefer wins to flash.

I'm more interested in discussing if a player who shoots 80% from the field, but is useless at all other basketball skills would actually result in more wins.

Posted: **Thu Dec 13, 2012 6:28 pm**

Sounds like Steve Novak lol

Posted: **Thu Dec 13, 2012 6:32 pm**

Someone being able to hit 80+% from three is insane. You have to take him, the efficiency boost to your team would be unstoppable.

All you need is a decent drive-and-kick option and you're going to dominate.

Posted: **Thu Dec 13, 2012 6:57 pm**

If he shoots 80+ percent no matter what then you take him, you let him shoot every time and you win every game.

Posted: **Thu Dec 13, 2012 7:04 pm**

Karnak wrote:The question of whether wins or flashy play are more important is kind of moot. Every home team fan would prefer wins to flash.

I'm more interested in discussing if a player who shoots 80% from the field, but is useless at all other basketball skills would actually result in more wins.

Well in this hypothetical situation he can shoot from anywhere so spreading the floor would make it easy for him to find his shot.

But as a fan, would you enjoy watching a player hoist 20-30 jumpers a game, every single game?

Posted: **Thu Dec 13, 2012 7:05 pm**

spearsy23 wrote:If he shoots 80+ percent no matter what then you take him, you let him shoot every time and you win every game.

Yes, but as a coach or GM, would you worry that wins wouldn't translate into more interest for your team? Since watching a guy jack up threes for a whole game would be pretty bland.

Posted: **Thu Dec 13, 2012 7:13 pm**

maxpower88 wrote:
spearsy23 wrote:If he shoots 80+ percent no matter what then you take him, you let him shoot every time and you win every game.

Yes, but as a coach or GM, would you worry that wins wouldn't translate into more interest for your team? Since watching a guy jack up threes for a whole game would be pretty bland.

You've got a guy scoring fifty plus a game, it doesn't matter how he does it, he's the greatest offensive player ever and the marketing takes care of itself between that and fifteen championships in a row.

Posted: **Thu Dec 13, 2012 7:21 pm**

spearsy23 wrote:
maxpower88 wrote:
spearsy23 wrote:If he shoots 80+ percent no matter what then you take him, you let him shoot every time and you win every game.

Yes, but as a coach or GM, would you worry that wins wouldn't translate into more interest for your team? Since watching a guy jack up threes for a whole game would be pretty bland.

You've got a guy scoring fifty plus a game, it doesn't matter how he does it, he's the greatest offensive player ever and the marketing takes care of itself between that and fifteen championships in a row.

So how would you try to sell that player to your fans? Remember that other than his shooting, he's not an NBA caliber player. Do you feel that fans would enjoy watching him do the same thing over and over again? As a fan, how many times could you watch a guy make jumpers and not get bored?

Posted: **Thu Dec 13, 2012 7:30 pm**

maxpower88 wrote:
spearsy23 wrote:
maxpower88 wrote:
Yes, but as a coach or GM, would you worry that wins wouldn't translate into more interest for your team? Since watching a guy jack up threes for a whole game would be pretty bland.

You've got a guy scoring fifty plus a game, it doesn't matter how he does it, he's the greatest offensive player ever and the marketing takes care of itself between that and fifteen championships in a row.

So how would you try to sell that player to your fans? Remember that other than his shooting, he's not an NBA caliber player. Do you feel that fans would enjoy watching him do the same thing over and over again? As a fan, how many times could you watch a guy make jumpers and not get bored?

Indefinitely if he's on my team. But it's not like he'd be your only player.

Posted: **Thu Dec 13, 2012 7:31 pm**

maxpower88 wrote:But as a fan, would you enjoy watching a player hoist 20-30 jumpers a game, every single game?

Sure, why not if they are mostly going in and we're winning games? Jumpers only become a grind when they aren't going in and you're losing

Posted: **Thu Dec 13, 2012 7:31 pm**

He’s an NBA hall of fame caliber player if he shoots 80 from the 3.

You don’t need to sell him to the fans, youre winning and you have the best scorer of all time. People care about winning. It trumps everything.

Posted: **Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:04 pm**

Steve Novak is a pretty popular player, and he only makes 45% 3s.

Posted: **Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:09 pm**

maxpower88 wrote:Let's say in a hypothetical situation, a player comes along who can shoot the ball EXTREMELY well, even in terms of NBA standards. I'm talking about long range shots and three-point shots falling at an 80-90% rate. But that's literally ALL he can do. He's a liability on defense, can't rebound, can't dribble, but give him that ball and he'll jack up a shot and score it.

Basically he has the ugliest and most boring game in the NBA, but it translates into wins. And let's say the team's strategy involves getting him open and letting him sink shots all night long which would translate to about 40-50 PPG (assuming he takes 20 shots a game at just over 80% would give him 16 made field goals, assuming 5 or so of those are three-pointers, that averages to about 45 PPG without any free throws).

And you're the coach. Would you rather have this player on your team who can essentially jack up a shot from anywhere on the court and get it in almost all the time, translating into ugly wins? Or would you rather have a more traditional star on your team, who has an all-around game but can't guarantee as many wins?

So basically the question is, would you rather have a boring star who can guarantee wins and championships or an exciting star who definitely helps the team but cannot give you the same guarantee in terms of his game translating into team success?

Posted: **Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:14 pm**

Ok, I guess the general consensus is that you would all play him.

Now for part 2.

After 15 years in the league, the player retires. Since he was such a great shooter and could score from anywhere, he won 8 NBA titles being the focal point of the team.

He has career averages of 48 points (.850 FG%), 0.5 rebounds, 1 assists, 0 steals, 0 blocks, 2 turnovers 3 fouls.

Accolades include:
-8x NBA Champion
-5x NBA Finals MVP
-3x NBA MVP
-12x All-Star
-10x All-NBA First Team
-15x NBA Scoring Champion

So the question: is said player better than Jordan? All he can do is score from jump shots, but the scoring translates into championships.

Posted: **Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:14 pm**

If I have a guy who can shoot 80-90% from 3, all I need is a big man who demands a double team or a slash-kick guy and I'm instantly making the Finals. Hell, if he's that good from outside, I'd bet he's at least 50% from halfcourt. The spacing you'd have would be obscene.

Posted: **Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:39 pm**

He would surpass Jordan's fame. That would be incredibly entertaining. Imagine a guy triple teamed forty feet from the basket hurling a shot- then, swish. This is crazy talk though bc anything above sixty percent from 3 in a NBA season is unfathomable. The best case scenario is a guy like Steve Kerr going a bit over 50% from 3 due to his proficiency and his good fortune of being a defensive afterthought.

Posted: **Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:42 pm**

maxpower88 wrote:But as a fan, would you enjoy watching a player hoist 20-30 jumpers a game, every single game?

Why not? That sounds like Kobe. People love him and he makes half the shots this guy would make.

This hypothetical guy is a hell yes.

RealGM

Would you rather have?

Would you rather have?

Re: Would you rather have?

Re: Would you rather have?

Re: Would you rather have?

Re: Would you rather have?

Re: Would you rather have?

Re: Would you rather have?

Re: Would you rather have?

Re: Would you rather have?

Re: Would you rather have?

Re: Would you rather have?

Re: Would you rather have?

Re: Would you rather have?

Re: Would you rather have?

Re: Would you rather have?

Re: Would you rather have?

Re: Would you rather have?

Re: Would you rather have?

Re: Would you rather have?

Re: Would you rather have?