Would you rather have?

[eaglebaldini]

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?

[maxpower88]

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.

[azuresou1]

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.

[Roseability]

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.

[Biz Gilwalker]

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.

[Rockice_24]

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.

People still go watch the Knicks so yeah people will watch teams chuck 3's. Just have the rest of the guys on the team be dunkers and when you're up enough let them dunk away, it's win win.

[maxpower88]

I dunno if you guys missed it but check my previous post. There's a part 2 to the question.

Look at my post and here's the question: After that player retires, does he go down in the history books as the GOAT?

[BadNFluenz]

i dont have anything about hypothetical posts, but this is just unreal? whats the point of discussing it?

okay maybe 60% or something, but 80%? and then additionally around 50 ppg? cmon dude

[GuyverX]

Being able to shoot at 90% is unreal but if he isn't fast enough to get off his own shot, what's the point? Guys can just smother him on D and he just won't ever shoot--which is all he is good for. You don't achieve 80-90% shooting taking bad shots. I don't care who you are. So how is this guy supposed to help you win? He is a liability in every other facet of the game. He cannot pass out of a double team because he sucks at that also. If a guy is shooting 90% there is no defensive strategy to make. You just never leave him--ever. That shooting % plummets if he's forced to take bad shots.

[Tave]

Being able to shoot at 90% is unreal but if he isn't fast enough to get off his own shot, what's the point? Guys can just smother him on D and he just won't ever shoot--which is all he is good for. You don't achieve 80-90% shooting taking bad shots. I don't care who you are. So how is this guy supposed to help you win? He is a liability in every other facet of the game. He cannot pass out of a double team because he sucks at that also. If a guy is shooting 90% there is no defensive strategy to make. You just never leave him--ever. That shooting % plummets if he's forced to take bad shots.

Exactly. It doesn't matter what percentages the guy shoots. If he sucks at everything else, he won't be able to get his shot off. He might be good for a few 3-pointers but no way in hell will he average 50ppg. He'd be lucky to average 15ppg.

[peja drobnjak]

so you're asking if i'd take a superpowered pistol pete or byu jimmer on my team?

uh heck yes

[Zubby]

Is this 80% no matter what?

because I feel as though it would be pretty easy to stop this player...
He has no other nba skills so he is Iverson height, with Shawn Bradley speed & athletic ability.

put and nba player 61'" and above and they shut him down... He also doesn't have world class cardiovascular fitness so he can't run all day like Miller/Rip



This player is only good for late game situations if you have a 1st option that commands double teams.

He is out of the league in 3 years.

[maxpower88]

Ok guys this is a hypothetical situation so let's not discuss how likely it is to happen because I'm sure we all agree that it is very unlikely to happen.

I'm asking, is this hypothetical player better than Jordan?

[PetroNet]

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.

I cant believe you are implying that:

a) A guy scoring 50 points per game wont draw fan interest

b) that watching someone go off from 3, especially from way deep, isnt exciting

c) that a team winning consistently, in any style, wont draw and keep fans

[PetroNet]

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.

Bt far would this player be the GOAT, and by a large margin over Jordan. he would also challenge for the GOAT in all team sports, not just basketball