Would you rather have?
Moderators: ken6199, Dirk, bisme37, KingDavid, bwgood77, zimpy27, cupcakesnake, Domejandro, infinite11285, Harry Garris
Would you rather have?
-
- Senior
- Posts: 598
- And1: 174
- Joined: Sep 21, 2009
Would you rather have?
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?
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?
Re: Would you rather have?
- TwentyOne920
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,679
- And1: 129
- Joined: Jun 29, 2012
Re: Would you rather have?
I wouldn't have him as my first option. Still would be nice in an instant offense role.
bertrob wrote:Any casual fan saying anything about Tim Duncan is usually wrong
bobly wrote:Kobe locked up his All Defensive Team this year after he blocked Lebron in the all-star game.
Re: Would you rather have?
- Gramatika5O
- Sixth Man
- Posts: 1,530
- And1: 86
- Joined: Dec 18, 2011
Re: Would you rather have?
As the coach, why would I care if the star is boring or not? All I care about is wins
"Chronology" DuckIII's favorite word
Re: Would you rather have?
-
- Ballboy
- Posts: 2
- And1: 0
- Joined: Oct 08, 2010
Re: Would you rather have?
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.
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.
Re: Would you rather have?
-
- Banned User
- Posts: 164
- And1: 22
- Joined: Jul 16, 2012
Re: Would you rather have?
Sounds like Steve Novak lol
Re: Would you rather have?
-
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 32,327
- And1: 3,736
- Joined: Apr 27, 2005
Re: Would you rather have?
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.
All you need is a decent drive-and-kick option and you're going to dominate.
Re: Would you rather have?
- spearsy23
- RealGM
- Posts: 19,240
- And1: 7,459
- Joined: Jan 27, 2012
Re: Would you rather have?
If he shoots 80+ percent no matter what then you take him, you let him shoot every time and you win every game.
“If you're getting stops and you're making threes and the other team's not scoring, that's when you're going to see a huge point difference there,” coach Billy Donovan said.
Re: Would you rather have?
-
- Senior
- Posts: 598
- And1: 174
- Joined: Sep 21, 2009
Re: Would you rather have?
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?
Re: Would you rather have?
-
- Senior
- Posts: 598
- And1: 174
- Joined: Sep 21, 2009
Re: Would you rather have?
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.
Re: Would you rather have?
- spearsy23
- RealGM
- Posts: 19,240
- And1: 7,459
- Joined: Jan 27, 2012
Re: Would you rather have?
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.
“If you're getting stops and you're making threes and the other team's not scoring, that's when you're going to see a huge point difference there,” coach Billy Donovan said.
Re: Would you rather have?
-
- Senior
- Posts: 598
- And1: 174
- Joined: Sep 21, 2009
Re: Would you rather have?
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?
Re: Would you rather have?
- spearsy23
- RealGM
- Posts: 19,240
- And1: 7,459
- Joined: Jan 27, 2012
Re: Would you rather have?
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.
“If you're getting stops and you're making threes and the other team's not scoring, that's when you're going to see a huge point difference there,” coach Billy Donovan said.
Re: Would you rather have?
- Gramatika5O
- Sixth Man
- Posts: 1,530
- And1: 86
- Joined: Dec 18, 2011
Re: Would you rather have?
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 losingmaxpower88 wrote:But as a fan, would you enjoy watching a player hoist 20-30 jumpers a game, every single game?
"Chronology" DuckIII's favorite word
Re: Would you rather have?
- Moose10Fan
- Veteran
- Posts: 2,618
- And1: 2,551
- Joined: Feb 01, 2012
Re: Would you rather have?
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.
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.
Re: Would you rather have?
-
- Sophomore
- Posts: 201
- And1: 49
- Joined: Feb 23, 2012
Re: Would you rather have?
Steve Novak is a pretty popular player, and he only makes 45% 3s.
Re: Would you rather have?
-
- Rookie
- Posts: 1,075
- And1: 26
- Joined: Jan 04, 2005
Re: Would you rather have?
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?
Re: Would you rather have?
-
- Senior
- Posts: 598
- And1: 174
- Joined: Sep 21, 2009
Re: Would you rather have?
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.
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.
Re: Would you rather have?
-
- Head Coach
- Posts: 7,416
- And1: 1,072
- Joined: Jun 15, 2009
Re: Would you rather have?
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.
Re: Would you rather have?
-
- Junior
- Posts: 372
- And1: 102
- Joined: Mar 22, 2011
Re: Would you rather have?
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.
Re: Would you rather have?
- HornetJail
- RealGM
- Posts: 44,466
- And1: 12,532
- Joined: Feb 05, 2012
- Location: within Mark Williams' reach
Re: Would you rather have?
Why not? That sounds like Kobe. People love him and he makes half the shots this guy would make.maxpower88 wrote:But as a fan, would you enjoy watching a player hoist 20-30 jumpers a game, every single game?
This hypothetical guy is a hell yes.
formerly KEMBAtheMETEOR