1 on 1 Ability vs Individual Ability

[og15]

Read on Twitter

?t=lzgNuCwdnhvrGkqH5lOzGQ&s=19

This clip had me thinking of this. I definitely disagree with Arenas' conclusions about Manu, and again brings that question of ability to play and ability to judge talent and impact not actually being the same.

I also think his method of analysis of "who is better 1v1" tells us who is the better "individual player" is odd. I would think individual ability also includes passing, rebounding, defense, etc, but that's me. Maybe that's semantics, but I still can't find a way of judging who is the better individual player simply by who wins in a 1v1 matchup. Gilbert also my then says Lou Williams is also better than Manu, individually.

The interesting thing is talking about the system as if that's what made Manu good, but the Spurs did play different styles over his career there, and then Manu was also really good internationally which was not the Spurs system.

The overarching question, and this is just to get an idea of people's opinions is whether people use 1v1 as their basis of judging individual ability or not.

There can also be two other questions here. Best 6th men, is Manu top 5? Maybe not as a 6th man specifically if you argue that from 2004-2011 he started around 60% of his games, so he was more a starter than 6th man. I could see that idea.

Second question would be whether Manu is a better individual player than Jamal and Williams, and whether there are those who believe he is not?

[tsherkin]

Gilbert Arenas isn't a particularly worthwhile font of good thought. He's an idiot. And of course Manu was better than Crawford. Jamal Crawford was a mediocre scorer who has a couple seasons as a decent bench spark. Competent to decent 3pt shooter. Aesthetically pleasing to those who like contemporary handles.

Manu was a better defender and playmaker. A better shooter. Better team player. His ability to contribute 5-v-5 is greater than Crawford's, which matters more in the NBA context. You want Rucker Park? Maybe you pick Crawford. Certainly if you're looking for entertainment value. You want contribution to the NBA, it's Manu no question.

[Capn'O]

Manu would wax him irregardless of the situation. You know. Like he did to the entire USA Men's Basketball team.

That's straight up disrespectful. Manu was a straight **** baller. Elite shooter, defender, and finisher and his handle wasn't that much worse than Jamal's. How is he taking him 1 on 1?

[Wallace_Wallace]

Just because one player is better than another in a 1v1 situation, it doesn't make them better. One could literally ignore passing, offensive/defensive awareness, and rebounding.

The reason why people view 1 on 1 ability with such value is because there's too much action going on the basketball court and most of us are only interested in who's handling the ball and who's defending the ball. If we see, "Wow, Irving just crossed the heck out of the defender and spin the ball from an impossible angle." It's too flashy to ignore. However, what we don't realized is that there is so much going on off the ball that it's nearly impossible to keep track of. It's not just the player/screen movement, if we are being really technical here, the refs could probably call a call every single play and it would be legitimate.

[BenoUdrihFTL]

1 on 1 ability =/= individual ability in a 5 on 5 game

And for the record I think Manu would besmirch Crawford in a 1 on 1 game

[Ckay]

Didn't Manu smoked that 2004 USA team?

[Capn'O]

Didn't Manu smoked that 2004 USA team?

I would say so.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/international/boxscores/2004-08-27-argentina.html

Watch on YouTube

[Ruma85]

Read on Twitter

?t=lzgNuCwdnhvrGkqH5lOzGQ&s=19

This clip had me thinking of this. I definitely disagree with Arenas' conclusions about Manu, and again brings that question of ability to play and ability to judge talent and impact not actually being the same.

I also think his method of analysis of "who is better 1v1" tells us who is the better "individual player" is odd. I would think individual ability also includes passing, rebounding, defense, etc, but that's me. Maybe that's semantics, but I still can't find a way of judging who is the better individual player simply by who wins in a 1v1 matchup. Gilbert also my then says Lou Williams is also better than Manu, individually.

The interesting thing is talking about the system as if that's what made Manu good, but the Spurs did play different styles over his career there, and then Manu was also really good internationally which was not the Spurs system.

The overarching question, and this is just to get an idea of people's opinions is whether people use 1v1 as their basis of judging individual ability or not.

There can also be two other questions here. Best 6th men, is Manu top 5? Maybe not as a 6th man specifically if you argue that from 2004-2011 he started around 60% of his games, so he was more a starter than 6th man. I could see that idea.

Second question would be whether Manu is a better individual player than Jamal and Williams, and whether there those who believe he is not?

I saw it on my feed earlier didn't even want to watch it, stupid take more for clicks then anything else.

[Warriors Analyst]

NBA players seem to really value 1v1 because it's completely removed from game plan and scheme. Steph Curry is a much better player than Kyrie Irving and yet several players persist in their belief that Irving is better than Steph or that he belongs in the top 20 of all time because Kyrie can get buckets when sphincters get tight in the playoffs and a team's desired playcall doesn't work.

[tsherkin]

I can't stress enough how good an example Gilbert Arenas is of NBA players being no better than fans as far as inherent value of opinion. I mean, he's an especially bad example because he's got mental health issues which interrupt his baseline patterns of thought and behavior (the dude crapped in a teammate's shoes, etc), but it's a general truth. We see it with half-time commentators and so forth all the time. Ignorant, backward, limited... having played in the NBA doesn't lend any real weight to what they're saying because they're logically unsound and don't keep up with the game itself. Many of them hold on to old, well-disproven myths, and focus on stuff which doesn't really matter.

[og15]

1 on 1 ability =/= individual ability in a 5 on 5 game

And for the record I think Manu would besmirch Crawford in a 1 on 1 game

This is what made it even funnier to me, I don't particularly think Jamal wins in 1v1 either

Gilbert Arenas isn't a particularly worthwhile font of good thought. He's an idiot. And of course Manu was better than Crawford. Jamal Crawford was a mediocre scorer who has a couple seasons as a decent bench spark. Competent to decent 3pt shooter. Aesthetically pleasing to those who like contemporary handles.

Manu was a better defender and playmaker. A better shooter. Better team player. His ability to contribute 5-v-5 is greater than Crawford's, which matters more in the NBA context. You want Rucker Park? Maybe you pick Crawford. Certainly if you're looking for entertainment value. You want contribution to the NBA, it's Manu no question.

Oh yes, I definitely know Arenas' analysis can be very lacking, I was just curious to see if at least some people actually think in the same vein.

[tsherkin]

Oh yes, I definitely know Arenas' analysis can be very lacking, I was just curious to see if at least some people actually think in the same vein.

Of course they do. It's sad, but prevalent.

[og15]

Just because one player is better than another in a 1v1 situation, it doesn't make them better. One could literally ignore passing, offensive/defensive awareness, and rebounding.

The reason why people view 1 on 1 ability with such value is because there's too much action going on the basketball court and most of us are only interested in who's handling the ball and who's defending the ball. If we see, "Wow, Irving just crossed the heck out of the defender and spin the ball from an impossible angle." It's too flashy to ignore. However, what we don't realized is that there is so much going on off the ball that it's nearly impossible to keep track of. It's not just the player/screen movement, if we are being really technical here, the refs could probably call a call every single play and it would be legitimate.

But this is a former professional who was a very effective player, and JR Smith seems to be kinda agreeing, even saying you put Jamal anywhere and he'll get buckets, but Manu wouldn't?

If it's a casual fan, who cares, but a former high level NBA player saying the better individual player is whomever wins 1v1? And it's not even necessarily true that Jamal would win 1v1, Manu is bigger, stronger, shifty and can shoot too, he would use fewer dribbles but he could get the ball in the basket against Jamal (or Lou) pretty easily.

[Capn'O]

1 on 1 ability =/= individual ability in a 5 on 5 game

And for the record I think Manu would besmirch Crawford in a 1 on 1 game

This is what made it even funnier to me, I don't particularly think Jamal wins in 1v1 either

Gilbert Arenas isn't a particularly worthwhile font of good thought. He's an idiot. And of course Manu was better than Crawford. Jamal Crawford was a mediocre scorer who has a couple seasons as a decent bench spark. Competent to decent 3pt shooter. Aesthetically pleasing to those who like contemporary handles.

Manu was a better defender and playmaker. A better shooter. Better team player. His ability to contribute 5-v-5 is greater than Crawford's, which matters more in the NBA context. You want Rucker Park? Maybe you pick Crawford. Certainly if you're looking for entertainment value. You want contribution to the NBA, it's Manu no question.

Oh yes, I definitely know Arenas' analysis can be very lacking, I was just curious to see if at least some people actually think in the same vein.

The 1v1 game vs a team game is kind of apples and oranges but this was the worst example. As you say, comical. It's fairly widely understood that the Spurs' system stunted Manu's individual talent and numbers. Not the other way around. Manu was so damn good. Jamal could get a game here or there... maybe.

The biggest thing is Jamal could score on Manu sometimes but there's no way he could stop Manu. His man defense was so lacking, Manu could just bull him which would open up his drives and crazy finishing. Then finish him with the J. There aren't many wings I would think could beat Manu 1v1.

[Franco]

Does Arenas realize that, even during 1 on 1, you have to play defense?

If Manu gets the ball at any point, Jamal is never getting it back.

[dhsilv2]

Does Arenas think he at his best could beat Manu one on one....cause I don't think he could have done that! But this is just a god awful bad take, horrible logic, and down right insulting to a clearly better player.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Just because one player is better than another in a 1v1 situation, it doesn't make them better. One could literally ignore passing, offensive/defensive awareness, and rebounding.

The reason why people view 1 on 1 ability with such value is because there's too much action going on the basketball court and most of us are only interested in who's handling the ball and who's defending the ball. If we see, "Wow, Irving just crossed the heck out of the defender and spin the ball from an impossible angle." It's too flashy to ignore. However, what we don't realized is that there is so much going on off the ball that it's nearly impossible to keep track of. It's not just the player/screen movement, if we are being really technical here, the refs could probably call a call every single play and it would be legitimate.

But this is a former professional who was a very effective player, and JR Smith seems to be kinda agreeing, even saying you put Jamal anywhere and he'll get buckets, but Manu wouldn't?

If it's a casual fan, who cares, but a former high level NBA player saying the better individual player is whomever wins 1v1? And it's not even necessarily true that Jamal would win 1v1, Manu is bigger, stronger, shifty and can shoot too, he would use fewer dribbles but he could get the ball in the basket against Jamal (or Lou) pretty easily.

Arenas doesn't believe this, it's all for clicks. This is a podcast take.

[tsherkin]

Arenas doesn't believe this, it's all for clicks. This is a podcast take.

Unlikely. It's pretty consistent with his usual input on just about anything from across the years.

[og15]

Just because one player is better than another in a 1v1 situation, it doesn't make them better. One could literally ignore passing, offensive/defensive awareness, and rebounding.

The reason why people view 1 on 1 ability with such value is because there's too much action going on the basketball court and most of us are only interested in who's handling the ball and who's defending the ball. If we see, "Wow, Irving just crossed the heck out of the defender and spin the ball from an impossible angle." It's too flashy to ignore. However, what we don't realized is that there is so much going on off the ball that it's nearly impossible to keep track of. It's not just the player/screen movement, if we are being really technical here, the refs could probably call a call every single play and it would be legitimate.

But this is a former professional who was a very effective player, and JR Smith seems to be kinda agreeing, even saying you put Jamal anywhere and he'll get buckets, but Manu wouldn't?

If it's a casual fan, who cares, but a former high level NBA player saying the better individual player is whomever wins 1v1? And it's not even necessarily true that Jamal would win 1v1, Manu is bigger, stronger, shifty and can shoot too, he would use fewer dribbles but he could get the ball in the basket against Jamal (or Lou) pretty easily.

Arenas doesn't believe this, it's all for clicks. This is a podcast take.

You think he had notes prepared with the predetermination to say this for clicks? I don't know...

[Ein Sof]

Crawford isn't even better than Cole Aldrich

Watch on YouTube