RealGM

Wondering about this in the context of the top 100 project. Particularly with modernism in vogue, it seems there is a credible case that you can't build an offense around a guy who can't reliably put the ball on the floor.

If a guy can't dribble in traffic, can he be your offensive anchor?

Every player who has an attribute which is bad puts a hypothetical ceiling on a player.

If you could shoot like Curry, get your shot off from anywhere like Dirk and pass like Jokic, then your offensive ceiling exists but it is still incredible high.

If you mean someone like Durant who can't run Spread P&R over and over because he will end up turning the ball over too much, then that is a real conversation about his ceiling as a ball handler.

Colbinii wrote:Every player who has an attribute which is bad puts a hypothetical ceiling on a player.

If you could shoot like Curry, get your shot off from anywhere like Dirk and pass like Jokic, then your offensive ceiling exists but it is still incredible high.

If you mean someone like Durant who can't run Spread P&R over and over because he will end up turning the ball over too much, then that is a real conversation about his ceiling as a ball handler.

Durant and Reggie Miller were the two people I had in mind.

Depends what a ceiling means.

Does it limit them in some situations, are they worse than they would be otherwise (this thing is limiting them) ... yes.
Does it mean they couldn't be better than anyone ever if they can move with such speed and dexterity that they can nearly teleport around the court, are automatic within 40ft of the basket, have no trouble getting a good shot off (without the handle ...super high release, fakes, that speed, quick release ... whatever), have superb elite mapping/vision and decision making and can pass the ball around a corner ... I wouldn't have thought so.

It's all part of a package. Big weaknesses probably make it harder to leverage other strengths and probably tend to be quite harmful. On the other hand if one were so exceptional at everything at all else then that ceiling would be so high the flaw might not be noticed. That guy might not be likely in practice but at a the same time ceilings are about best-case scenarios. So I think it's more about the specifics.

ceiling raiser wrote:Wondering about this in the context of the top 100 project. Particularly with modernism in vogue, it seems there is a credible case that you can't build an offense around a guy who can't reliably put the ball on the floor.

If a guy can't dribble in traffic, can he be your offensive anchor?

Give me Kareem and let me try.

penbeast0 wrote:

ceiling raiser wrote:Wondering about this in the context of the top 100 project. Particularly with modernism in vogue, it seems there is a credible case that you can't build an offense around a guy who can't reliably put the ball on the floor.

If a guy can't dribble in traffic, can he be your offensive anchor?

Give me Kareem and let me try.

Hmmm, thing is though, if Kareem gets the ball in the post, I trust him to put the ball on the floor to get a better position. Same with Shaq, Jokic.

ceiling raiser wrote:Hmmm, thing is though, if Kareem gets the ball in the post, I trust him to put the ball on the floor to get a better position. Same with Shaq, Jokic.

Perhaps a semantic comment, but I'd argue there is a difference between "ball protection" and "handles."

Kareem did not often dribble more than twice in his career, and certainly didn't work lengthy face-up action that didn't end in a quick step into a shot or a reversal for a shot. This is far different from what we consider a contemporary PG or iso wing, for example.

tsherkin wrote:

ceiling raiser wrote:Hmmm, thing is though, if Kareem gets the ball in the post, I trust him to put the ball on the floor to get a better position. Same with Shaq, Jokic.

Perhaps a semantic comment, but I'd argue there is a difference between "ball protection" and "handles."

Kareem did not often dribble more than twice in his career, and certainly didn't work lengthy face-up action that didn't end in a quick step into a shot or a reversal for a shot. This is far different from what we consider a contemporary PG or iso wing, for example.

Pretty important thing to remember about turnover economy. People who handle the more tend to lose it more too. Effeciency as a ball-handler is really about turnovers relative to how much you're handling/using the ball and how much you do throughout a possession with the time you have.

There's a big difference between turnover economy and handles too. No one is saying John Wall had poor handles but he had a high turnover rate. No one is saying Al Jefferson had great handles but he rarely turned the ball over.

OhayoKD wrote:Pretty important thing to remember about turnover economy. People who handle the more tend to lose it more too. Effeciency as a ball-handler is really about turnovers relative to how much you're handling/using the ball and how much you do throughout a possession with the time you have.

Yes, ball protection is key. Though you'll also see that expressed in terms of risky passes versus basic/sensible passes if you're speaking of playmakers. And of course if you're just looking at raw TOV%, it'll be suppressed by guys who end a lot of possessions with FGA. But as you say, when you aren't just catching and shooting and you spend a lot of time off-ball, you are invariably going to produce fewer turnovers. Some possession types are riskier than others. You can see it well enough in the TOV% of guys like Magic and Stockton, and even Harden. You can see it in the difference between young Jordan and title-winning MJ. And so on and so forth. Again, TOV% is a rude basic measure and individual turnover types such as have already been mentioned are more appropriate, but as a basic yard stick, not bad.

To me, when we're speaking of handles, I always think of technical proficiency in unbalancing a single defender, as well as navigating successfully in traffic. Related, but not exclusive, to the idea of ball protection. A single dribble here or there as you're navigating the post uses those to some degree, but that's less about handles and more about where you're holding the ball and the timing on your post move(s), wherefore I hesitate to look at someone like Kareem or Shaq in that regard (granted, Milwaukee Kareem did face up a little, more but rarely for more than a step, maybe to a spin). Someone like Hakeem, okay, now we're talking. Someone like Robinson and Ewing, you can see the difference, since all three of them leveraged face-up game fairly often.

You didn't need crazy "handles" per se to be an effective post player in the 90s and earlier, give or take individual physical attributes and skill profile. Karl Malone didn't have crazy handles. He could put the ball on the deck a little, but I don't think his inability to handle like a modern day forward were his major limitation. He was able to be a wild offensive anchor for a very long time with a fairly tepid ball-handling profile.

And penbeast summarizes my point nicely with Al Jefferson. He wasn't an incredible ball-handler, but he knew how to get good position, how to receive a pass and he had very good post footwork and use of his shoulders to carve space for his hooks. And phenomenal timing. You wouldn't want him touching the ball north of the foul line most of the time and certainly not maintaining a live dribble past the arc, nor driving to the basket from more than a step or two away. Definitely not the guy to shift a defense with dribble penetration. Of course, he's also not an amazing example in context of the thread because he was a duffy offensive anchor because he was inefficient and not a particularly good playmaker. But the point is made that turnover economy and handles, while related, are not the same thing.

ceiling raiser wrote:

Colbinii wrote:Every player who has an attribute which is bad puts a hypothetical ceiling on a player.

If you could shoot like Curry, get your shot off from anywhere like Dirk and pass like Jokic, then your offensive ceiling exists but it is still incredible high.

If you mean someone like Durant who can't run Spread P&R over and over because he will end up turning the ball over too much, then that is a real conversation about his ceiling as a ball handler.

Durant and Reggie Miller were the two people I had in mind.

Reggie Miller has a much higher offensive ceiling than DeMar DeRozan, for example.

tsherkin wrote:

OhayoKD wrote:Pretty important thing to remember about turnover economy. People who handle the more tend to lose it more too. Effeciency as a ball-handler is really about turnovers relative to how much you're handling/using the ball and how much you do throughout a possession with the time you have.

Yes, ball protection is key. Though you'll also see that expressed in terms of risky passes versus basic/sensible passes if you're speaking of playmakers. And of course if you're just looking at raw TOV%, it'll be suppressed by guys who end a lot of possessions with FGA. But as you say, when you aren't just catching and shooting and you spend a lot of time off-ball, you are invariably going to produce fewer turnovers. Some possession types are riskier than others. You can see it well enough in the TOV% of guys like Magic and Stockton, and even Harden. You can see it in the difference between young Jordan and title-winning MJ. And so on and so forth. Again, TOV% is a rude basic measure and individual turnover types such as have already been mentioned are more appropriate, but as a basic yard stick, not bad.

To me, when we're speaking of handles, I always think of technical proficiency in unbalancing a single defender, as well as navigating successfully in traffic. Related, but not exclusive, to the idea of ball protection. A single dribble here or there as you're navigating the post uses those to some degree, but that's less about handles and more about where you're holding the ball and the timing on your post move(s), wherefore I hesitate to look at someone like Kareem or Shaq in that regard (granted, Milwaukee Kareem did face up a little, more but rarely for more than a step, maybe to a spin). Someone like Hakeem, okay, now we're talking. Someone like Robinson and Ewing, you can see the difference, since all three of them leveraged face-up game fairly often.
.

The other potential use of ball-handling is taking defenders out of the play. Magic was one of the best at this, but he routinely force multiple defenders out of the way just by where and how he handled the ball creating a simple read for himself to exploit.

I don't think Nash did that(the lack of rim-gravity an issue here), but he was relentless in terms of penetrating and would move past defenders to create similar reads(also was a more talented passer for my money so he found ways to compensate).

I think Stockton was on the opposite end where he would make clear reads when they opened up as opposed to forcing a reaction like a Nash would.

OhayoKD wrote:The other potential use of ball-handling is taking defenders out of the play. Magic was one of the best at this, but he routinely force multiple defenders out of the way just by where and how he handled the ball creating a simple read for himself to exploit.

Yep.

I don't think Nash did that(the lack of rim-gravity an issue here), but he was relentless in terms of penetrating and would move past defenders to create similar reads(also was a more talented passer for my money so he found ways to compensate).

Nash dictated the action by using the screen and/or dribble penetration to get into the lane and cause chaos, then slithered around until he found a pass he liked or reset. He was very good at altering the defense that way and shuffling defenders with that method.

I think Stockton was on the opposite end where he would make clear reads when they opened up as opposed to forcing a reaction like a Nash would.

I have so much trouble with Stockton. His RAPM numbers dramatically overstate his visual impact on the game and Sloan's system explicitly boosted APG. Coupled to Stockton's playoff scoring and general lack of takeover ability, I find him to be one of the most difficult players to evaluate. Part of this is that I remember him in the late 90s more than any other time frame, when he was at his playoff worst, either due to matchups and/or injuries, which is only so fair to him. But even in the late 80s and early 90s... I dunno. Dude knew how to throw a pocket pass like an absolute boss, though, and he was a savant in the 90s pick and roll. I imagine it's getting rarer to find people to remember his transition game, too. Didn't create dribble pressure like Nash, wasn't a particularly impressive scoring threat, wasn't a huge postseason threat. Perhaps more people remember him for being trash garbage in 98, and maybe don't remember him being 35 and having microfracture surgery.

Anyway. Stockton had great vision, read well and didn't push the D, but rather took what they gave him. I don't know if I'd call that a strength for him as a second star, as opposed to a major weakness alongside Malone who desperately needed someone else to create the action. But it did make him safe and very effective.

The better question should be, what if a player has bad hands instead of handles. There was a gulf of difference between a player like Kwame Brown and Amare. You see it in their rookie seasons and later on in their careers. You know despite people thinking that dunking isn’t a skill, it is. The ability to finish at the rim is a real tangible skill.

Is there a ceiling on a player's offensive value if they cannot adequately perform one of the fundamental aspects of basketball?

We shouldn't need to overthink the answer, it quite clearly limits their ceiling yes.
We also don't need to conflate or undermine that response with suggesting they cannot still be a highly impactful offensive player.

Speaking of what's in vogue, I think the emergent references to 'modernism' to pigeon hole a debating point is more relevant.