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?
Turbo Zone
