RealGM

In the sense that they can have a great stat line but have no real effect on your team and in the game...

I have some people in mind but what are yours?

Generally speaking for these kinds of people you have 2 types:

The Big Dog type, who score a lot but guard so poorly they give up basically what they give you, or the 'Toine type, where they are really inefficient but get the numbers because they deal in volume.

Rasho. Whenever he puts up good numbers, Toronto loses.

this one is difficult IMO..I guess it would probably have to be someone playing for a bad team, but it couldn't be their best players, since they mean a lot to the team..

Crawford, Randolph, Curry..

Michael Redd for sure.

Ben Gordon - this guy can average 25 PPG but no matter what it doesn't seem to help his team.

Michael Redd - averages well over 20 PPG every year, but the Bucks always suck. I wonder why.

Zach Randolph - people don't realize what a great move Portland made by trading him away while he still had some value.

Jamal Crawford - Actually cracking the 20 PPG barrier this year, but obviously that hasn't made a difference on the woeful Knicks squad.

*UPDATE* I was writing this post when there were 0 replies, but while I posted there were other replies that pretty much had the exact same choices as I did lol.

HarlemHeat37 wrote:this one is difficult IMO..I guess it would probably have to be someone playing for a bad team, but it couldn't be their best players, since they mean a lot to the team..

Crawford, Randolph, Curry..

The whole 'bad team' thing is so misunderstood. No player, no matter how good, can make a team of bad players good all by himself. Before he got support, MJ went years on sub .500 teams and never won a playoff game.

The other day the Rockets were playing the Clippers, and the Rockets pbp guy was saying that the Clippers had clearly made a mistake picking Thornton over Landry, and Drexler responded (as close as I can recall):

'Let's wait till they are both on good teams. It's so much easier to look good on a good team. I played on good teams and bad teams, and it was a lot easier putting up good numbers on a good team than on a bad team. On a good team you have better teammates who make you look better by drawing attention, getting you the ball, stuff like that. On a bad team the other team is looking to stop you, you get worse support, and no one really knows their roles all that well.'

I gotta disagree about Ben. Since we drafted him when he plays well, we're a good team that can beat anyone (not this year), and when he's played poorly we can struggle against crappy teams. The Bulls have needed his scoring to be successful. I'd say Deng's stats are more empty, it often feels like he has no impact even when he puts up big numbers, and he always disappears in the 4th.

AL JEFFERSON.
Straight up BALLER, and never wins. Its sad really.

Charlie villenueva, hes an offensive monster but whenever i see him defending someone i keep wondering if he could defend a chair.

Amare Stoudamire barely edging out Zach Randolph.

I think Marion should be in this discussion.

ice9 wrote:I gotta disagree about Ben. Since we drafted him when he plays well, we're a good team that can beat anyone (not this year), and when he's played poorly we can struggle against crappy teams. The Bulls have needed his scoring to be successful. I'd say Deng's stats are more empty, it often feels like he has no impact even when he puts up big numbers, and he always disappears in the 4th.

I agree. When Gordon has a big game we usually win.

Harry Palmer wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



The whole 'bad team' thing is so misunderstood. No player, no matter how good, can make a team of bad players good all by himself. Before he got support, MJ went years on sub .500 teams and never won a playoff game.

The other day the Rockets were playing the Clippers, and the Rockets pbp guy was saying that the Clippers had clearly made a mistake picking Thornton over Landry, and Drexler responded (as close as I can recall):

'Let's wait till they are both on good teams. It's so much easier to look good on a good team. I played on good teams and bad teams, and it was a lot easier putting up good numbers on a good team than on a bad team. On a good team you have better teammates who make you look better by drawing attention, getting you the ball, stuff like that. On a bad team the other team is looking to stop you, you get worse support, and no one really knows their roles all that well.'

but the fact that the team is good makes it more likely that more players are actually contributing, and not just putting up empty stats..I find it more likely that a role player or complimentary player on a bad team's stats are less meaningful than a good player playing on a successful team..

HarlemHeat37 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



but the fact that the team is good makes it more likely that more players are actually contributing, and not just putting up empty stats

Not really. The ONLY advantage you get from playing on a bad team is more shots or pt. IF you are efficient, that's not a factor, and then virtually all the variables of playing on a bad team work against you: defenses key to stop you more than they could if you had better teammates, you have worse teammates setting you up or finishing your set-ups, you have worse defense coverage, etc. etc.

The idea that the points person A scores mean more because he is surrounded by better players is just off. Did MJ just get better, did his points mean more, once he had better teammates?

Look at Marion...he went from a good team to a bad one, and his efficiency sank like a rock. Conversely, Gasol went from a bad team to a good one, and his efficiency went way up.

Or consider what Drexler said.

you can look at the +/- stat in relation to team's +/-. And in the knicks Eddie Curry owns the negative impact

http://www.nba.com/statistics/lenovo/le ... eam=Knicks

Palmer is making some really good points. Don't forget that even Toine' contributed to a championship team. As far as saying a guy like Toine' or Z-bo because they score a lot on high efficiency, I don't think the numbers are good if a guy is scoring at a low rate or has a ton of TOs, maybe its just how I look at the numbers though.

The perception bias here is crazy though. When SJax was on the Spurs he was a valued role player, in ATL and Indy he was a heartless chucker, and now he's a tough leader. What's the difference? The team is winning now.

After bashing the thread though I'll say that Mike Redd might really be up there. Dude can't do anything but score. He'd be good on a team that could defend well without him and had a good distributing point guard, then everyone would go back to loving him.

I think the only guy that really ever fit this was prime Stephon Marbury. Put up nasty stats every season but somehow managed to make every team he was on worse.

Maybe Pistol Pete is the all-time winner.

I actually agree with Palmer's points, but I'm trying to find criteria here..couldn't EVERYONE that puts up good stats have an argument for making a contribution to his team then?..

wouldn't this just simply come down to "overrated players"?..because that would be a much easier topic to comment on..

AI

HarlemHeat37 wrote:I actually agree with Palmer's points, but I'm trying to find criteria here..couldn't EVERYONE that puts up good stats have an argument for making a contribution to his team then?..

wouldn't this just simply come down to "overrated players"?..because that would be a much easier topic to comment on..

I think the point is that player's accomplishments are percieved differently based on their situation. If a guy scores a lot on a crap team, he's a chucker. On a good team he's a superstar. If a player sucks on a crap team, he's a scrub. On a good team, he's a valuable role player.

Like I said, anyone that thinks that Eddy Curry or Antoine Walker were putting up superstar numbers wasn't looking very hard at the numbers.

The only real anomoly was Starbury because he consistenly put up legitimately good numbers while making his teams worse.