Why BALL HOGS never win a chamionchip?

[BallerTalk]

Yes. Harden is significantly more ball hogging and dribble happy. Not even a contest there. Harden dribbles air out of basketball on half court. Westbrook tries to kick it out to easy simple basket as fast as possible in first 10 seconds.

That may explain why Harden has been decidedly more successful as a lead guard.
He easily the more cerebral of the two and consequently the better playmaker. Westbrook largely hunts assists.

[JN61]

Yes. Harden is significantly more ball hogging and dribble happy. Not even a contest there. Harden dribbles air out of basketball on half court. Westbrook tries to kick it out to easy simple basket as fast as possible in first 10 seconds.

That may explain why Harden has been decidedly more successful as a lead guard.
He easily the more cerebral of the two and consequently the better playmaker. Westbrook largely hunts assists.

I don't know if he has been more successful as a lead guard. Harden has 2 West finals appearances as the lead guard for his team. Westbrook has 4 and one finals appearance. Say what you say about Westbrook's style of play but he still isn't even remotely similar player in terms of hogging the basketball than Harden. Pass the ball to Harden and you will get it back after 10 seconds if you are lucky. Pass the ball to Westbrook and he makes the play within 2 seconds like his style or not.

[BallerTalk]

Westbrook has 4 and one finals appearance.

Don't be disingenuous.
How many of those are without Harden?
How many without Durant?

I don't know if he has been more successful...

Harden's record post OKC record easily outpaces Westbrook post Durant.
In fact the only time Westbrook has even gotten out of the first round since the KD defection is the one year he spent with Harden.

I know you ride hard for Westbrook but there's really no question who has been more successful.

Anyway, enough digression

[queridiculo]

I mean, Jordan won 6 titles, how about Kobe post Shaq? Isn't Lebron a ball hog?

What's a ball hog or is it only ball hogging when you don't win a ring?

What's the criteria, FGA, usage? Feels?

I am confused.

[Knightfall]

Kobe won 5 of them as a ball hog. He was an elite passer when he wanted to be or an elite ISO scorer when he wanted to be, but rarely ever balanced both

Slow down. Its 2 that he was the leader on and even in that one with a elite big man that should have been finals MVP for 1 of those titles.

[tsherkin]

His only decent series was against New Jersey.

That is violently inaccurate, and I notice that you are only looking at the Finals, as if the three preceding series and the RS don't matter. An interesting and very particular way to ignore how useful he was through the bulk of a title run.

[hyper316]

Interested to see MJ's number for this

[Lockdown504090]

Interested to see MJ's number for this

Illegal defense call kinda didnt force guys to move the ball like defensive 3 seconds does, but its still not going to be as high as these other guys because he was playing in the triangle, which is essentially what the warriors are doing.

[hardenASG13]

Yes. Harden is significantly more ball hogging and dribble happy. Not even a contest there. Harden dribbles air out of basketball on half court. Westbrook tries to kick it out to easy simple basket as fast as possible in first 10 seconds.

That may explain why Harden has been decidedly more successful as a lead guard.
He easily the more cerebral of the two and consequently the better playmaker. Westbrook largely hunts assists.

So Westbrook (in his prime) was a ball hog who shoots too much but also hunts assists? Can you explain how he hunts assists? See this all the time with knocks on Russ. Do you mean he plays aggressively and constantly tries to make plays for his team? This is a bad thing?

How people claim Russ hunts assists and not a guy like CP3, who never has been aggressive enough as a scorer and only takes select shots, is beyond me.

[JN61]

Westbrook has 4 and one finals appearance.

Don't be disingenuous.
How many of those are without Harden?
How many without Durant?

I don't know if he has been more successful...

Harden's record post OKC record easily outpaces Westbrook post Durant.
In fact the only time Westbrook has even gotten out of the first round since the KD defection is the one year he spent with Harden.

I know you ride hard for Westbrook but there's really no question who has been more successful.

Anyway, enough digression

Gotta love the one way streets you people keep spinning.

[JN61]

Yes. Harden is significantly more ball hogging and dribble happy. Not even a contest there. Harden dribbles air out of basketball on half court. Westbrook tries to kick it out to easy simple basket as fast as possible in first 10 seconds.

That may explain why Harden has been decidedly more successful as a lead guard.
He easily the more cerebral of the two and consequently the better playmaker. Westbrook largely hunts assists.

So Westbrook (in his prime) was a ball hog who shoots too much but also hunts assists? Can you explain how he hunts assists? See this all the time with knocks on Russ. Do you mean he plays aggressively and constantly tries to make plays for his team? This is a bad thing?

How people claim Russ hunts assists and not a guy like CP3, who never has been aggressive enough as a scorer and only takes select shots, is beyond me.

It's just bad faith arguments to downplay players' way of playing. Every all time great playmaker hunts for assists because it's way to win games. If you can get easy buckets for your teammates over being forced to pass out it's winning basketball no matter who it is. Magic Johnson or Steve Nash or James Harden or Russell Westbrook (list goes on). Everyone hunted their teammates on offense to make great open easy looks for them.

[atlantabbq99]

His only decent series was against New Jersey.

That is violently inaccurate, and I notice that you are only looking at the Finals, as if the three preceding series and the RS don't matter. An interesting and very particular way to ignore how useful he was through the bulk of a title run.

Kobe wasn't useful at all. Eddie Jones could have easily produced, defended and shot better than Kobe in those playoff runs and Shaq would have been fine and probably Lakers would have performed better as a whole.

[tsherkin]

Kobe wasn't useful at all. Eddie Jones could have easily produced, defended and shot better than Kobe in those playoff runs and Shaq would have been fine and probably Lakers would have performed better as a whole.

Well, now that I know you're a straight-up troll, I'll be moving on. Cheers.

[Meat]

Counter point, every championship team has at least one ball hog, more often than not 2

Are you claiming ballhogging is a good thing...?

absolutely, it's dribbling the air out the ball when it becomes a problem.

[flow]

Dame Dolla still getting paid, though.

.

[Ein Sof]

Imagine a pickup game where you have these two teammates:

Spencer, who takes 1/5 of your team's shots but when he does shoot it's usually off his own creation.

Michael, who takes 2/5 of your team's shots. Michael's scores come off passes twice as often as Spencer's but passing to him isn't optional since he's the best player and dictates when and where he wants the ball.

This is Spencer Dinwiddie and Michael Jordan.

2022 Dinwiddie was only assisted on 32.6% of his FGAs, but he only shot 18.5 FGAs per 100 possessions.

1998 Jordan was assisted on 59.6% of his FGAs, but he took 32.1 FGAs per 100 possessions.

Are you telling me that 2022 Dinwiddie was really the bigger ballhog over 1998 Jordan?

lol

Yeah man. That's exactly how it works.

MJ was such a cancerous ballhog, unlike Dimwiddie. And so was 2016 Curry:

28.6 FGA/100
46.9% assisted rate

In fact, every first option in NBA history was a ballhog.

Who says words have to mean things?

I didn't say MJ was a cancerous ballhog. I said he's a bigger ballhog than Spencer Dinwiddie while demonstrating why using % of FGM assisted is a highly flawed way of measuring ballhogging. Your argument is so weak that you have to beat up on straw men rather than addressing what I actually say.

Here's a few more examples to demonstrate how absurd your position is:

Career % of FGs Assisted (career FGA in parentheses)
Tony Parker: 30.5% (12.6)
Andre Miller: 31.1% (10.0)
Rajon Rondo: 31.7% (8.9)
TJ McConnell: 33.0% (6.1)
Jrue Holiday: 33.4% (13.9)
Jameer Nelson: 34.4% (9.9)

Allen Iverson: 36.4% (21.8)
LeBron James: 36.9% (19.6)
Kobe Bryant: 40.6% (19.5)
Tracy McGrady: 44.5% (16.4)
Carmelo Anthony: 50.0% (18.0)
Bradley Beal: 53.4% (17.6)

So Tony Parker, Andre Miller, Rajon Rondo, TJ McConnell, Jrue Holiday and Jameer Nelson are bigger "ballhogs" than Allen Iverson, LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, Tracy McGrady, Carmelo Anthony and Bradley Beal? Yeah man, that's exactly how it works

In fact, every PG who doesn't shoot a high proportion of 3PAs is a "ballhog" (according to your astoundingly bad logic).

But yeah, who says words have to mean things?

P.S. Jordan is a bigger ballhog than Spencer Dinwiddie but that doesn't make him a cancer. Jordan is one of the best scorers of all-time so if he's on my team then I'd like him to hog the ball a fair amount. This shouldn't be hard to understand.

How did I beat up on a strawman when it's literally the argument you made?

Jordan is not a ballhog, especially compared to Dimwiddie, because being a ballhog is a bad thing - a ballhog is someone who hinders ball movement.

So when you talk about Jordan "hogging the ball", you're actually referring to him taking shots, like a scorer does.



Regarding your new statdump: I never said having a lower assisted rate than someone automatically makes you a "bigger" ballhog - that's something you made up. (plus those guys have high assisted rates for PGs)

Your argument is so weak that you have to beat up on straw men rather than addressing what I actually say.

What I actually said was that USG% (shots + turnovers) isn't ballhogging, and that a low assisted rate means you're taking a long time to score per touch, i.e. you're not scoring off quick ball movement.

A low assisted rate doesn't mean you're selfish or a ballhog. (see: Nash)
However, playing more off-ball is absolutely something that both improves one's assisted rate and also helps team offense.

So, a low assisted rate is much closer to showing ballhogging (time of possession) than USG% (which just tells you the player shoots a lot), even though it still isn't that close.




PS: What's your problem with equating "cancer" and "ballhog"? I know I already brought this up but are you seriously unaware "ballhog" is a negative term...?

[Ein Sof]

Counter point, every championship team has at least one ball hog, more often than not 2

Are you claiming ballhogging is a good thing...?

absolutely, it's dribbling the air out the ball when it becomes a problem.

"dribbling the air out the ball" and ballhogging are synonyms.

[HeatIn5]

Did anyone else think this was a thread about the big3 team?

[hardenASG13]

That may explain why Harden has been decidedly more successful as a lead guard.
He easily the more cerebral of the two and consequently the better playmaker. Westbrook largely hunts assists.

So Westbrook (in his prime) was a ball hog who shoots too much but also hunts assists? Can you explain how he hunts assists? See this all the time with knocks on Russ. Do you mean he plays aggressively and constantly tries to make plays for his team? This is a bad thing?

How people claim Russ hunts assists and not a guy like CP3, who never has been aggressive enough as a scorer and only takes select shots, is beyond me.

It's just bad faith arguments to downplay players' way of playing. Every all time great playmaker hunts for assists because it's way to win games. If you can get easy buckets for your teammates over being forced to pass out it's winning basketball no matter who it is. Magic Johnson or Steve Nash or James Harden or Russell Westbrook (list goes on). Everyone hunted their teammates on offense to make great open easy looks for them.

For sure, just feel like russ gets criticized for it more than most, if not everyone. Guy kept constant pressure on the defense. Too bad he never had good shooting or a rim running center to play with too.

[og15]

I leave here % of FG Ast'd per PO career for TOP perimeter players. You can draw your own conclusions.

1. Paul .135
2. Doncic .135
3. Nash .204
4. Westbrook .213
5. Harden .229

6. Wade .291
7. Lebron .326
8. Kobe .349
9. Curry .409
10. Kidd .447

I have been saying since the beginning of their stardom that Paul, Westbrook, and Harden will never win a chip because of how they play. Last season I doubled down on bets I had of Paul not winning a chip during the playoffs.

Their teams become way too dependent on them. Ofcourse if they ring chase it’s a different story because they aren’t the main guy anymore.

So as a Mavs fan, seeing Luka dominate the ball definitely kills me because I have been screaming about these other guy not playing championship ball for years. I’m just hoping in Lukas case he gets another star and becomes less dominant. Clearly we’ll only find out if the Mavs actually do get another star.

Steve Nash became dominant on the Suns because of D’Antoni’s offense and it’s unfortunate. It benefitted his personal accolades but Ofcourse never led to a chip. He wasn’t like that on the Mavericks.

I also wouldnt call it ball hog. The offense typically runs through these guys and they tend to have the ball in their hand majority of the possession before they make a decision.

If the team becomes too dependent on them it many times also means the team doesn't have the talent to not be overly dependent on them. If they have the talent, when you load up on that guy, it will free up the other guy to take over. It can also mean that the team is simply overachieving and without this player they just wouldn't look as good offensively in the first place, then the player would get called out for being passive and not shooting enough.

I don't understand this idea people have that every team can just switch things up and the non-creators will be able to create offense effectively. It simply doesn't actually work like that.

When a team of good but not great players with a lot of ball movement have a good offense in the regular season, what do many people think/say? They say, "when the playoffs comes and defenses clamp down and the ball movement doesn't consistently produce good shots they will struggle and need a star for those situations". And this is with good players who can create decently.

But then in the same breath people will say that top heavy teams with inferior creators outside of their main guys would just be better if they didn't rely on their primary shot creators so much. Really? You think no coach has every thought about that? Remember when people made fun of / criticized LeBron for saying the team needed more playmakers when he had Kyrie on his team? That's because LeBron gets it, you don't just make the other guys into playmakers when it's not their skillset.

The Suns relied of Paul and Booker so much because Bridges, Crowder and Ayton are simply not effective shot creators and playmakers. If they were, when Paul and Booker were loaded up on, they would have taken advantage and produced offense. If they were, when they had bench units on without those guys, they would have shown it. If they were, when Paul or Booker were out, we would have seen it. It's just not reality that every team is going to have all the talent needed to fill all their holes.

The Nash Suns let Joe Johnson go. Shawn Marion was not a shot creator or playmaker before or after Nash, Amare when attempted in that role showed poor vision and lack of passing ability. The problem I also have here is that some of these players teams lost due to things like not good enough defense, rebounding or depth, or even simply injuries, and their offense was actually up to the task, but other areas were not, and then the conclusion is made that it's just the offenses fault. This is because too many people still just analyze everything about winning and losing as "should have just scored more".