Who/what defines a true #1 option?

[sco]

Looking at the remaining playoff teams, I was reminded of the importance of a true #1 option as the centerpiece of a roster. My definition, for your comment, is a guy who is able to efficiently score 25-30PPG, and do so even when facing double-teams. He must also be able to score in isolation. While most #1 options are not defensive liabilities, I won't make it a requirement. Guys I see as currently true #1 options around the league are:

SGA
Joker
Ant
Tatum
Giannis
Luka
Cunningham
Brunson
KD

Debatables
Curry
Spider
Kawhi
Haliburton
Kyrie (if Healthy)
Embiid (if Healthy)


Thoughts/comments?

[cocktailswith_2short]

Can create their own shot . Can play within the system to it's benefit . Can score multiple ways all over the court . Alpha mentality .

[MrSparkle]

Debatables
Curry
Spider
Kawhi
Haliburton
Kyrie (if Healthy)
Embiid (if Healthy)


Thoughts/comments?

These are debatable 1st options?

*If healthy* might as well be applied to everybody.

I’m trying to wrap my brain around Cade and miss-the-play-in 36yo Durant outranking the debatables.

[GoBlue72391]

Curry is debatable but Cunningham isn't?

The criteria for a true #1 is being able to consistently create your own shot with volume scoring on above average efficiency while being the primary focus of the opposing team's defense and leading your team to wins in the process.

[Ice Man]

Hmmm. It's tricky. By your definition, Zach is a #1, because in his best seasons he scored 25+ with efficiency, and if teams didn't necessarily regularly double him, they at least hedged -- as much as they do, say, with Cade or Hali.

So, I think it's more than scoring. It's also leadership, decision making at critical times, defense, and shot creation for others. Zach can do that last bit fairly well, but as we know those other items have been a struggle for him.

[Axl Rose]

Obviously scoring and being clutch are qualities but what I think truly separates stars from superstars is understanding the game on a different level, almost instinctively so. Understanding how to attack defenses, getting your teammates in position, understanding team defense, etc

Being able to understand the game like that elevates everyone else.

[League Circles]

Most teams have a "#1 option". Doesn't mean anything to me. You do need a guy who can score at above league average efficiency against good defenses that are focused on him, making tough shots, and most importantly affect the opposing defensive scheme.

[sco]

Most teams have a "#1 option". Doesn't mean anything to me. You do need a guy who can score at above league average efficiency against good defenses that are focused on him, making tough shots, and most importantly affect the opposing defensive scheme.

Yeah. I mean a #1 option who is good enough to get your team into contention.

[DropStep]

Whatever this definition is, it needs a way to weed out good-stats-on-a-bad-team guys - which may be the Zach filter. It's going to be hard to make an objective measure for that, as reasonable people can disagree. These guys have to eventually be a winning player, and lead a decent team to winning. LaMelo Ball, for example, is not a number one option for me, or at least he hasn't proved it yet, largely because the teams he has led haven't won. Maybe that changes one day.

And, a lot of these guys often have to either grow into it, or prove it. Not all of them are born whole. There were interesting debates this year about about people like Ja and Haliburton. A lot of it is a combination of emotion, eye-of-the-beholder, and "prove it" stuff, I think. Sometimes one team thinks he's a #1, and others don't. And sometimes you just have to see it in crunch time. Even given his past accomplishments, Hali had doubters earlier this year, but it's hard to doubt the eye test now. Sometimes you only know it in retrospect. Brunson, of course, was not seen that way, and had to prove it over and over before everyone was convinced.

[kodo]

Mitchell is as good as many of these guys, previous two seasons 27 ppg and 28 ppg on very high efficiency. He's fully capable, but this year his stats ticked down due to teammates needing the ball more.

[League Circles]

I would almost suggest that a clear cut #1 option on a team who isn't roughly a top 5 guy in the league is an indication that his team is not playing up to their strengths. Most teams without an elite superstar, MVP candidate type guy should have 2-5 guys who on any given night are the #1 option based on who the opponent is.

[kodo]

Whatever this definition is, it needs a way to weed out good-stats-on-a-bad-team guys - which may be the Zach filter. It's going to be hard to make an objective measure for that, as reasonable people can disagree. These guys have to eventually be a winning player, and lead a decent team to winning. LaMelo Ball, for example, is not a number one option for me, or at least he hasn't proved it yet, largely because the teams he has led haven't won. Maybe that changes one day.

That list would have to include:
Kevin Durant (36 Ws)
Kobe Bryant (34 Ws)
Lebron James (37 Ws)
SGA (24 Ws)

Obviously we all know Lavine isn't as good as these other guys, but team Ws isn't the indicator because these guys all have lost as many games in a single season as Lavine. Team wins are still 99% about the team, not an individual.

[2weekswithpay]

A player who can consistently lead a team to an above-average (Top 10-12) offense.

Players who can do this usually can score on good volume with above average efficiency while being above average playmakers. So good/great ISO scoring + good/great playmaking. There is some wiggle room here, but if someone isn't good enough in one area, they probably aren't a #1 option.

Zach had the scoring volume and efficiency, but never had the passing ability, and little things like TOs and shaky ball handling chipped away at his offensive value even more. Zach may have looked comparable to Booker if you looked at points, rebounds, and assists, but Booker was in another tier as a playmaker with superior ballhandling.

[pipfan]

I was just thinking of Giddey and this question. Obviously he's not going to be a 25 pt guy, but can he be a "#1 option" on a solid team? Magic was never a big scorer, but was an all time great offensive engine, just like Nash. OF COURSE, I'm not saying Giddey is that level, but he's similar to them in style

[sco]

I think the majority of the guys listed are their team's primary ball handler. Clearly we don't have a true #1 option, but say we got one, does Giddey's value go down?

On the Zach topic, I think he, like Coby, fall into the category of "best scorer on his team but not good enough to be efficient when he's the focal point of good opposing defenses". You could say they are #2's.

[sco]

I was just thinking of Giddey and this question. Obviously he's not going to be a 25 pt guy, but can he be a "#1 option" on a solid team? Magic was never a big scorer, but was an all time great offensive engine, just like Nash. OF COURSE, I'm not saying Giddey is that level, but he's similar to them in style

Thought about it. IMO Giddey lacks a mid-range game. His game is to attack the rim and occasionally shoot 3's.

[Chi town]

Great thread.

Giddey would have to add volume on his 3 and keep FTs up with a go to move to get his own shot to be a #1.

For this Bulls team to get to contention with Giddey being the engine Buz would have to emerge as an elite 2nd option ala JDub, Coby would have to increase efficiency and we would need a strong bench scorer coupled with an elite rim protector and wing defender.

That’s a lot to ask. Don’t see any of our guys as a 1. I think Buz could get to elite 2nd option ala JDub

[sco]

Great thread.

Giddey would have to add volume on his 3 and keep FTs up with a go to move to get his own shot to be a #1.

For this Bulls team to get to contention with Giddey being the engine Buz would have to emerge as an elite 2nd option ala JDub, Coby would have to increase efficiency and we would need a strong bench scorer coupled with an elite rim protector and wing defender.

That’s a lot to ask. Don’t see any of our guys as a 1. I think Buz could get to elite 2nd option ala JDub

Yeah, that's how I see it. Also, Giddey isn't a shoot first point guard (forward)...the question is what would happen if we brought that guy in? He, IMO, was too deferential to Zach while he was here, and I worry that he'd step back if we got one.

[coldfish]

A long time ago we used to have a 0,1,2,3 system. That is to say, the number of defenders it takes to neutralize you.

0: Think Ben Wallace. Someone you don't have to guard and dare to shoot.
1: A guy who can be stopped with standard defense. Can really only score when someone else pulls off his defender and hits him with a pass.
2: Someone who needs a double team to consistently stop them. Can take single coverage off the dribble, in the post, etc. The second guy stops them. I would call Lavine a 2.
3: Someone who completely breaks down a defense. Draws in double teams and finds open men or beats the double. Joker, Shaq, MJ, etc.

What you are looking for are 3's. Add in a 2 and a few 1's and its an offense that is really hard to stop. A 3 and four 0's is stoppable.

[DropStep]

Whatever this definition is, it needs a way to weed out good-stats-on-a-bad-team guys - which may be the Zach filter. It's going to be hard to make an objective measure for that, as reasonable people can disagree. These guys have to eventually be a winning player, and lead a decent team to winning. LaMelo Ball, for example, is not a number one option for me, or at least he hasn't proved it yet, largely because the teams he has led haven't won. Maybe that changes one day.

That list would have to include:
Kevin Durant (36 Ws)
Kobe Bryant (34 Ws)
Lebron James (37 Ws)
SGA (24 Ws)

Obviously we all know Lavine isn't as good as these other guys, but team Ws isn't the indicator because these guys all have lost as many games in a single season as Lavine. Team wins are still 99% about the team, not an individual.

A single season doesn't mean much. But all of those people HAVE led winners, at some point, which was my point. If you have a 12-year career of consistent losing, then that changes some things. You've hopefully had an opportunity to prove it with a decent roster at least a time or two by that point, and if you haven't done it, then that counts for something on your resume.