"He needs the ball to be effective"

[GJense4181]

I often see this line thrown about to defuse somebody else's trade proposal. Or, the other favorite: "There's only one basketball on the court." Why? Who DOESN'T need the ball in their hands to be effective?
If you were to build a starting lineup of five "off-ball" players, what would happen?

If you were to list off all of these players that do not "need the ball in their hands to be effective", you would have written down the names of nearly every center in the NBA, all shot-blockers, defensive specialists, low-volume-shooters, *intangible players*, and general scrubs. Is that what it takes to win? Specialists and non-scorers?

Could somebody please clarify this for me? Why can't you pair Dwyane Wade and Lebron James together, but it's ok for Michael Redd and Lebron to be teammates? Why, hypothetically, can both play alongside Dwight Howard, then? Is this an indirect insult to pure scorers? Swingmen? Players with low assist totals? Superstars? What?

[Hood President]

"he needs the ball top be effective" i dont think its ever emplied to a guy who can score the ball like jamaal crawford etc. i think its emplied to low scorers(basically your dirty work players).

[DarthBane]

It's true that not all players need the ball to be effective. Varajeo is pretty effective and he doesn't need the ball in his hands. He cleans the boards and gets tons of points off put backs -- but he doesn't dominate the ball.

Ben Wallace, when he was actually good, was extremley effective but he didn't demand the ball. I bet he didn't even want to come within 5 feet of it on the offensive end. Would you say he was effective in Detroit despite the fact that he really didn't get the ball much? He was a defensive presence and rebounder.

- If you are strictly talking about needing to have the ball in their hands, as in ball handle and control the ball, then you can say all catch and shoot 3 point specialists are very useful despite not controlling the ball.

[ILikeTheGrizz]

Why can't you pair Dwyane Wade and Lebron James together, but it's ok for Michael Redd and Lebron to be teammates?

While you obviously could play them together, the point is something like this: Neither Wade nor LeBron are particularly great shooters. They are great penetrators. Penetrating to the basket to finish at the hoop isn't really something you do if you don't have the ball. They can't do it at the same time. So one of their strengths isn't being utilized as much as it could.

You put Wade and Redd or LeBron and Redd, it's different. Redd is a good penetrator, but not great. He is a great shooter, though, and he can spot up and benefit from either Wade or LeBron kicking it out. Wade or LeBron would benefit from Redd having to be guarded in case that happens. Because Redd in that situation doesn't "need the ball to be effective", he has just made it easier for both himself and the guy driving to the basket.

Like Kobe, you can't say what you said about LeBron and Wade about him. Yeah he's a great penetrator, but he's also a great shooter so he can play either role effectively. You wouldn't say "there's only one basketball" about him unless it was a slight at his attitude or something. So it's not just an anti-superstar thing or anything like that.

[J-Mezzy]

I don't see Kobe as a spot up shooter at all.

A perfect sample is Hedo Turkoglu, while Grant Hill was in Orlando dominating the ball, Hedo's role was to be a spot up shooter. Hedo was inconsistent and not efficient. Now that Hill is gone and Hedo has the ball a lot, he has blossomed. He's become a play maker, a scorer, a passer, a set up man. He is having his best season.

You can't have 2 or 3 players that need the ball in the same team. Watch 2004 Olympic team and you'll know why.

[realball]

Not very hard to understand. Lots of player are great at catching and shooting, they need to dribble the ball and create off the dribble to be effective. They might not move off the ball well. Such guys include Crawford, Pierce, Lebron, Wade, etc.

[ILikeTheGrizz]

I don't see Kobe as a spot up shooter at all.

But he can. I mean, I don't Alan Greenspan being an accountant at the corner grocery store, but he has the ability. He had the ability to do so much though too, so he did.

EDIT- I know this place has about 80 million Kobe homers but I'm gonna go ahead and presume to claim the first ever Kobe Bryant-Alan Greenspan comparison on this site.

[Sroek]

It has to do with redundancy.

For example, Vince Carter, although a high-calibre player, would have no success on a team like the Spurs or the Lakers.

A Rockets team, for example, can't have two McGrady's.

[Another Brick in the Wall]

It really depends on how formidable you are when your teammates have the ball in their ends. That's how teams add up to better than the sum of their parts.

Think about it, Manu Ginobili vs Tracy McGrady. They are both phenomenal players and can score the ball and create plays in numerous ways. But how effective is McGrady when Yao has the ball? Is he really a threat to score? He's not even that great of a spot up shooter. While Manu is always on the move, trying to get open, trying to make cuts to the basket when Duncan has the ball. He is also a much better spot up shooter. This makes the Spurs harder to defend as a team. Because everyone is a threat to score at any given time because of their greater ability to play off of others.

It also depends on how well the other aspects of your game are. Dwight Howard and Chris Bosh are both dangerous with the ball, but without the ball, Dwight is much more effective than Bosh because of his superior rebounding, shot blocking, pick-setting, boxing out, etc. abilities.

Great teams are always comprised of players who can be effective without the ball. There is a reason why Marbury/Curry/Randolph/Crawford doesn't work but Paul/West/Chandler/Stojakovic does.

[MalReyn]

I would claim Rip Hamilton as the epitome of a scorer who doesn't "need the ball to be effective."

He sets himself up for scoring opportunities via off-the-ball movement. Sure he needs the ball to actually shoot, but he doesn't need the ball in his hands to create offense.

[CBS7]

IMO, it refers to guys who are primarily slashers/guys who create shots for themselves.

The Celtics trio works because it combined 3 stars, only one of which who really needs the ball to be at his best (Pierce). Ray Allen, he could just be an elite spot up shooter, while KG could dominate in other aspects of the game (rebounding, defense, passing).

The Denver duo of AI/Melo doesn't work AS well because they are both guys who need the ball to be effective, as both guys are at there best as scorers with the ball.

Redd is similar to Allen, which is why so many people thought he would compliment LeBron then Hughes, who is a guy who mostly "needs the ball to be effective".

[ambiglight]

I often see this line thrown about to defuse somebody else's trade proposal. Or, the other favorite: "There's only one basketball on the court." Why? Who DOESN'T need the ball in their hands to be effective?
If you were to build a starting lineup of five "off-ball" players, what would happen?

If you were to list off all of these players that do not "need the ball in their hands to be effective", you would have written down the names of nearly every center in the NBA, all shot-blockers, defensive specialists, low-volume-shooters, *intangible players*, and general scrubs. Is that what it takes to win? Specialists and non-scorers?

Could somebody please clarify this for me? Why can't you pair Dwyane Wade and Lebron James together, but it's ok for Michael Redd and Lebron to be teammates? Why, hypothetically, can both play alongside Dwight Howard, then? Is this an indirect insult to pure scorers? Swingmen? Players with low assist totals? Superstars? What?

Some players don't contribute much unless they are handling the ball in some fashion obviously. So if you have some other player on the team that also has to handle the ball to contribute, there's too much redundancy at one position or rather in fulfilling a particular role. Players that are effective off the ball, tend to be the ones that play great one on one and help defense, give good screens, talk, and are catch and shoot type of guys. There are fewer players that fit this bill than people think. People kind of assume that if someone doesnt handle the ball much, it must mean that they are contributing in some other way. Which is not true. A lot of folks simply occupy space or do no more than what they are supposed to do. So I would say "needing the ball to be effective" can be used as an insult or to imply somebody is one dimensional. The mistake people make is in not realizing that scoring is important and the vast majority of the time, offense is going to be superior to the defense. Getting a bunch of stops but not being able to score inevitably leads to the pure scorer winning by sheer volume. You need a good combination of both types of players on a team.

[loserX]

Kwame Brown is actually a lot more effective the further away from the ball he is. Preferably in the next state.

[Hendrix]

Because great teams have great chemistry, and it doesn't always make sense to have facilitators, and slashers playing together without complimentary players. Too much 1 on 1, instead of team basketball. Sometimes you're better pairing a great facilitator at the wing like Lebron with a great defensive shooter like a Raja Bell for much cheaper then a Wade. Wade, and Lebron I'm sure would be great together, but if you had them together you better have a lot of spot up shooters, rebounders, defenders, and guys that don't need the ball in their hands around them to form a great well rounded team.

[Ballings7]

LeBron's going to need to play without the ball consistently in order to get a legitimate #2 helper next to him. Consequently that will make he and the team better overall, and more balanced in the way of getting better offensively. Because Cleveland's not a balanced team yet because of their limited offensive ability and over-reliance on LBJ.

LeBron can't dominate the ball all the time for the rest of his career, or else he won't get any advanced help next to him in the way of a credible #2 offensive guy, other than the kind of role-players he's had so far. Which have been finishers around the basket, fairly easy to catch and shoot guys. Because if not, that other guy, whoever it's going to be, will basically just be a cutter and shooter, ball-mover offensively. Limiting what else the #2 guy can do, and has in his game generally. The former is not exactly enough.

While Hughes was hurt quite a bit in Cleveland, when he wasn't, he still could of been used better if LeBron didn't need to have the ball, like, all the time. Hence the other side of why things didn't work with Hughes.

LeBron has to work on this aspect, to get an expanded-skill helper and allow for another good offensive player to make plays. Rather than just LeBron doing that. It's pretty much just been others playing off of LeBron, but soon it will need to become more balanced where LeBron can play off of others, too. The main other of those others, being a side-kick next to LeBron to make things easier.

[penbeast0]

Larry Hughes is an example of a guy who needs the ball in his hands to be ineffective, lol.

Also there are guys who need the ball but are creators for their teammates like LeBron, Magic, Oscar etc.

Then there are guys who dominate the ball but don't create for their teammates who figure out that hard cuts and working to get themselves open are basically a waste of time so they stand around waiting for the ball dominator to either get his shot or need to dump it away. This was always the complaint about Adrian Dantley despite his otherwordly numbers; ball domination is only a positive if it makes a team more efficient (my complaint against Allen Iverson too).

[Joseph17]

It's about chemistry. If you put a bunch of players that can't move without the ball on the same team, your team won't have good chemistry. In some situations, needing the ball to be effective is good. A team like Orlando improved drastically because of Turkoglu. Turkoglu needs the ball to be effective. If you put Turkoglu on a team like LA, he wouldn't be half has efficient as he is now.

[Lockdown]

I always thought it was a euphemism for "he's stupid and doesn't know how to play team basketball, space the floor, set screens, find his position or help create passing lanes, just how to try to score" or "he's selfish and just stands around when he doesn't have the ball."

[fugop]

Think of it this way: how many dribbles does a player need to get a shot he can hit?

Antawn Jamison, for instance, is probably the highest scoring player who doesn't do much with the ball. He gets in on the perimeter, he shoots, and he's got a fine set shot. He gets it in the lane, he throws up one of his junk shots, and it has a high chance of going in. He gets offensive rebounds, and puts them back. He's a very good scorer who does most of his damage without isos or initiating any of the action on the offensive end.

Gilbert is ball dominant; he doesn't often receive the pass on a cut and finish, or get a kickout and hit the shot. Our "patented" play at the end of a quarter is to iso Gilbert (or Caron) outside the three point line and let the player do what he can.

Caron is ball dominant, though his game is flexible enough that he can score either way, his versatility is one of his best assets.

[Mahoney_jr]

In theory all you need are five really good basketball players. But in the era of the salary cap you can't pay 5 effective go-to-guys (or players who need the ball to be effective if you want to call them that way).

It is for this reason that we have so much younger players in the NBA who want to be the man. Only "the men" get really big contracts. And therefore I'm really happy that Boston has young role players and older players for heavy rotation minutes because those guys aren't padding stats for a fat contract. They're just playing within their role, contributing to a healthy team and profiting cash-wise in the long run.