RealGM

Hi all,

there is a lot of talk about the players we have and their potential as a 1a option for the team. What defines being a first option in your eyes?

Being unstoppable, reliable, and highly efficient—like Jordan, Shaq, LeBron, Kawhi, Durant and Curry. These players consistently deliver under pressure and are the go-to leaders when it matters most.

disoblige wrote:Being unstoppable, reliable, and highly efficient—like Jordan, Shaq, LeBron, Kawhi, Durant and Curry. These players consistently deliver under pressure and are the go-to leaders when it matters most.

You just described a superstar, w/ the "unstoppable" label.

A first option doesn't always have to be an unstoppable, just efficient & reliable (as you said).

My simple description of a first option is someone who can effectively & efficiently create for himself and his teammates (even if it means attracting double teams and being able to make the right pass).

Someone who can consistently create something out of nothing when a play breaks down and also have the ability to bend defences whenever they’re on the court.

HumbleRen wrote:Someone who can consistently create something out of nothing when a play breaks down and also have the ability to bend defences whenever they’re on the court.

I take this a exemplary, because at this point there have been only some very vague descriptions. I would like to find some criteria that are a little bit more measurable. So there are various aspects of the game, as there are roles.
Is the number option always the goto guy?
Is it the guy with the best creation tools?
Is it the 3-level scorer?

How can I identify a first option in a team and how can I compare a player to what we can define a "standard" for first options, so to tell if the player is a good first option or not.

Perhaps it would also help to name a few good first options and to define, why they are good first options.

disoblige wrote:Being unstoppable, reliable, and highly efficient—like Jordan, Shaq, LeBron, Kawhi, Durant and Curry. These players consistently deliver under pressure and are the go-to leaders when it matters most.

Some bad news for Tank-Nation then. I don't see Flagg as a first-option player. Only possible elite first-option player in this draft so far is probably Ace Bailey. I don't think Dylan Harper is athletic enough to do the things he does in the NBA. Some good young talent, but I don't see any of these prospects as the Jordan/Lebron type.

Raptorfan2012 wrote:

disoblige wrote:Being unstoppable, reliable, and highly efficient—like Jordan, Shaq, LeBron, Kawhi, Durant and Curry. These players consistently deliver under pressure and are the go-to leaders when it matters most.

Some bad news for Tank-Nation then. I don't see Flagg as a first-option player.

Agree. I've heard Vecenie talk about Flagg as a Franz Wagner 2.0 but with a higher defensive ceiling - that would still make him a 2nd option. Although I personally don't think that Flagg will ever be better than Wagner offensively.

Rawahl wrote:

HumbleRen wrote:Someone who can consistently create something out of nothing when a play breaks down and also have the ability to bend defences whenever they’re on the court.

I take this a exemplary, because at this point there have been only some very vague descriptions. I would like to find some criteria that are a little bit more measurable. So there are various aspects of the game, as there are roles.
Is the number option always the goto guy?
Is it the guy with the best creation tools?
Is it the 3-level scorer?

How can I identify a first option in a team and how can I compare a player to what we can define a "standard" for first options, so to tell if the player is a good first option or not.

Perhaps it would also help to name a few good first options and to define, why they are good first options.

Melo didn’t have a 3, but was a lethal scorer. Shaq dominated the paint. Traditionally go to scorer doesn’t have to be 3 lvl scorer, Giannis can’t shoot too.

A guy who can rip apart the opponent defensive scheme without a proper set play or with his isolation ability. Teammates would just space the floor and dump the ball to him, and he will score.

someone who can consistently drive your offense esp during clutch time and win you games

kawhi was that....derozan was that during the regular season

There maybe many definition of first option, but perhaps our need for first option is more someone who can generate good scoring chance at clutch time or down the shot clock against a tight defense.
Does he has to score or setup first? Maybe not, but he is reliable that he can generate good looks for himself or teammates down the line.

Sometimes they may get shutdown by opposing defense, so some teams may have a good second option who can also generate good scoring chance with less of the first option.

When the team goes dry, you can just feed the ball to him and he'll get you a bucket. (Think Kawhi)

2 things define the #1 option:

1. As the name suggest, the first guy you try to set up to score, if the opponent takes that away, you go to the #2 and so on. Essentially the core of the offense.

2. Reliability, you know that guy delivers, be it by scoring or setting other players up to score. At the end of the game, when you need a bucket, thats the guy that through whom the offense goes. Does not mean he is the closer, it just means, he is the guy you rely on the most.

In both cases, the #1 option has to be so good, that the other team does everything they can, to make him give the ball up, but the #1 guy still manages to come through.

Thats why Shaq & Kobe where so lethal, cause both were #1s at the same time, so you had to pick your poison of whom you rather want to kill you.

Someone who can consistently create advantages for themselves or their team.

Matchup proof.

Is reliable in the clutch.

Shows up against the best competition.

Not scared.

Can impose their will to create buckets (doesn’t have to be the one scoring) late in the game.

HiJiNX wrote:Someone who can consistently create advantages for themselves or their team.

Matchup proof.

Is reliable in the clutch.

Shows up against the best competition.

Not scared.

Can impose their will to create buckets (doesn’t have to be the one scoring) late in the game.

I think there are three things you mentioned there which would rather be defining of a superstar: reliable in the clutch, shows up against best competition, and not scared.

I think first option here would be the impose will to create buckets, and consistently create advantages for themselves/team.

RaptorLakerJay wrote:

HiJiNX wrote:Someone who can consistently create advantages for themselves or their team.

Matchup proof.

Is reliable in the clutch.

Shows up against the best competition.

Not scared.

Can impose their will to create buckets (doesn’t have to be the one scoring) late in the game.

I think there are three things you mentioned there which would rather be defining of a superstar: reliable in the clutch, shows up against best competition, and not scared.

I think first option here would be the impose will to create buckets, and consistently create advantages for themselves/team.

Joe Johnson wasn’t a superstar but was first option for the Hawks. Would you consider Bosh and DDR as superstar when they were playing for us? They were first option.

manjusaka wrote:

RaptorLakerJay wrote:

HiJiNX wrote:Someone who can consistently create advantages for themselves or their team.

Matchup proof.

Is reliable in the clutch.

Shows up against the best competition.

Not scared.

Can impose their will to create buckets (doesn’t have to be the one scoring) late in the game.

I think there are three things you mentioned there which would rather be defining of a superstar: reliable in the clutch, shows up against best competition, and not scared.

I think first option here would be the impose will to create buckets, and consistently create advantages for themselves/team.

Joe Johnson wasn’t a superstar but was first option for the Hawks. Would you consider Bosh and DDR as superstar when they were playing for us? They were first option.

It's all relative of course, but a 1st option is generally a guy who can create his own shot effectively and at a high shot volume. This allows other guys to get their shots up against lessened defensive intensity, kickouts, spacing, etc. I'd say that describes Joe Johnson, but obviously he couldn't do it at a high enough level to make Atlanta a title contender, but they were a decent team.

What most people have said:
- can consistently self-create advantage against halfcourt defenses, and leverages that to score efficiently, draw fouls or create open looks for teammates

And even amongst guys I would consider #1 options there is a massive gap between the low end ones and the ones who can actually win you a championship - like going from Trae Young to Jokic.

Somebody that can score 1 on 1. There are exceptions of course (eg. elite non C&S shooting like a Curry for example).

AbC? wrote:What most people have said:
- can consistently self-create advantage against halfcourt defenses, and leverages that to score efficiently, draw fouls or create open looks for teammates

And even amongst guys I would consider #1 options there is a massive gap between the low end ones and the ones who can actually win you a championship - like going from Trae Young to Jokic.

Trae Young is more-so due to his defence.

Trae Young with like Marcus Smart defence is a MVP caliber guy

Are we talking about what is a first option on any given team, or what SHOULD be?

Because teams ultimately mostly have a guy they go to. They lean into their higher-volume guys. It's typically someone who can handle above the arc a little, attack from PnR and get a look, even if it's a 3 or whatever. What is the focal point of each possession? Is it stalling until Player A gets free around some screens? Is it Player B pounding the rock and attacking from PnR, supporting a given level of shooting volume? Is it Player C, who is a primary playmaker who uses his own scoring as a pressure release? Player D who balances playmaking and shooting volume as an on-ball guy?

Ultimately, "first option" is a generic term referring to the focal point of the offense. After that, you start establishing whether or not it is a GOOD thing that said player is in that role.

A given floor of scoring volume coupled to good efficiency, and then hopefully at least reasonable vision/passing ability would be a good start. But then you start looking at team objective, right? A team with a title in mind will have MUCH more stringent parameters on what counts as a good first option than one merely attempting to make the playoffs.

Some of the stuff ITT like "creates advantages for teammates" and such are good examples of what quality first options can do, absolutely.