Luis Scola vs Boris Diaw

[Purch]

Who was the better player and why?

[LoyalKing]

Scola was a better scorer, but I think Diaw gets the nod as an overall player. He could play and guard multiple positions, he is much better defensively and he is a better passer.

[RSCD3_]

Diaw more athletic even at his bigger size, a better low post player, a better 3 point option, a better defender and a better passer


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[berkkobe7]

Diaw once averages 11/6/6 iirc and constantly look like poor mans lebron so i give the edge to him


But 2004 olympics Scola is damn good too.

Sent from my SM-G900FQ using RealGM Forums mobile app

[GSP]

Diaw for sure. Scola is useless if his shots not going in as seen in Indy
he has cement for feet on defense

[Joseph17]

Diaw now. Scola in his prime. This is a classical example of players getting overrated as a result of playing on a good team. If the Spurs would have kept Scola and had him in 07 instead of Fabricio Oberto this wouldn't even be a discussion. The Spurs trading away Scola was one of their rare mistakes.

[Quotatious]

Initially I And1'd Joseph17's post, but after looking deeper into it, I have to go with Diaw. His 2006 season seems pretty amazing in retrospect - I hadn't been aware of this fact before, but damn, Diaw averaged over 6 APG in 2006. I remember he was really good that year when Amare was out, but damn...13/7/6 with 17.3 PER, 14.9 WS/48, 56.4% TS, 115 ORtg, and 5th in NPI RAPM (17th in prior informed) - amazing numbers for a role player, and 19/7/5 throughout the playoffs, with even higher PER and TS%, including a 24/8.5/3 WCF against Dallas... I remember he was good, but not THAT good...

Scola, on the other hand, consistently looks really bad in RAPM, which tells me that his numbers were pretty empty (and I really don't like that phrase, use it very rarely, but it seems like it applies here). Even at his peak in 2011 he wasn't any good by that metric - outside of the top 100 and really bad on defense.

So, yeah it gotta be Diaw, peak, career, right now, everything.

[Hornet Mania]

At their best Diaw is clearly a better player. He was a key cog on that 2006 Suns team, a quality starter on the Bobcats' first playoff team (arguably their third-best player after Wallace and Stephen Jackson), and a big part of keeping the rock moving and ensuring that the Spurs were the 2014 world champions.

At their worst I'd take Scola though. Diaw has a tendency to not give maximum effort unless he feels the team is moving in a positive direction with a serious chance of winning consistently. If your squad is stuck in mediocrity Good Diaw will morph into Fatass Diaw in a hurry. He will proceed to jack up an indefensible number of 3s while giving minimal effort on D and never getting back in transition. Scola is more of a professional in this respect. He really gutted it out for the Rockets even when they were in a miserable position as 9th-best in the West, and (correct my if I'm wrong, Phoenix fans) he seemed to still give strong effort even as the Suns sucked in 2013.

So it depends on how much you can engage Diaw. If you can do what the 06 Suns or Pop did and make him a key piece on a strong team he'll really amaze you at times. If you're a 30-win club just trying to bring in vets to improve the overall competency of your team than Scola is the better option.

[Exodus]

Scola was a solid power forward in his prime. He is your prototypical fundamentally hard hat PF that will do all the little things and put ups points on the side. He could score, rebound, set screens, box out, played the game tough.

Scola >

[Young_Star11]

Houston fan - prime and motivated Diaw had more to offer than Scola. Scola in Houston in his first 2-3 years was great for us though. Great competitor and best player with no athleticism.