effort vs talent

whipdamage · Post #1 » by **whipdamage** » Sat Apr 26, 2008 3:56 am

what would you say is better to have in the league?

vince carter had incredible dunking ability while on the toronto raptors. he won the dunk contest in the year 2000. even though carter had dunking talent, some people had the impression that he didn't try his best in every game.

steve nash, on the other hand, gets an A+ for effort.
1. he licks his hands on offense.
2. he starts moving quickly and looks to receive the inbounds pass right after an opponent scores.
3. while other phoenix suns players are standing around, nash can dribble to the hoop, jump, turn his back to the basket, and overhead-pass it back out with both hands. you've probably seen him do it before. this can look like a waste of time to some people.
4. he's active on defense, even though he's not the best. marion guarded tony parker in last year's playoff series.

steve nash may be one of the top 10 most active players of all time in the nba. i think his activeness is an illusion and is one reason why he was overrated.

stoudemire>nowitzki in fastbreak scoring
marion>finley in fastbreak scoring
grant hill>raef lafrentz in scoring
barbosa>adrian griffin in scoring

nash played the same way on the dallas mavericks. however, nash teamed up with players in phoenix who were better suited to his active playing style.

nash did not make marion a faster runner or a higher jumper, but marion can run without the ball and convert passes into assists well. it takes 2 to tango, and i think nash took too much credit. marion should have received more credit.

when the suns run half-court sets with shaq or diaw, nash can look like an average point guard.

Buckeye-NBAFan · Post #2 » by **Buckeye-NBAFan** » Sat Apr 26, 2008 3:57 am

Talent. The NBA is composed of the top 1% most talented basketball players in the world.

The most effort? I know a ton of guys who probably work on their game more than a lot of pros. But they'll never set foot in the NBA.

PopAGat · Post #3 » by **PopAGat** » Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:10 am

Allen Iverson is ALL effort. I love this guy. At 33 hes still showing no signs of slowing down. Complete warrior.

Buckeye-NBAFan · Post #4 » by **Buckeye-NBAFan** » Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:35 am

PopAGat wrote:Allen Iverson is ALL effort. I love this guy. At 33 hes still showing no signs of slowing down. Complete warrior.

Wasn't there a thread just a bit ago with people saying AI might be the most athletic guy in the NBA? AI is a lot of talent.

Post #5 » by **5DOM** » Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:38 am

both to be great.

but talent is probably more important.

G35 · Post #6 » by **G35** » Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:46 am

I thought this thread was going to be about the Pistons/Philly series.......

whipdamage · Post #7 » by **whipdamage** » Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:54 am

PopAGat wrote:Allen Iverson is ALL effort. I love this guy. At 33 hes still showing no signs of slowing down. Complete warrior.

allen iverson, as a short nba player, can dunk. he also has a good cross-over. i would say he has talent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OT4IzLGhQc&feature=related

Post #8 » by **Rooster** » Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:05 am

Taking the other side, there are tons of extremely talented players out there who don't put in enough effort and therefore don't make it. It's truly a balance of both.

FlashFlood · Post #9 » by **FlashFlood** » Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:42 am

In the NBA you gotta either have talent or effort. If you've got both, you're a star... I'd rather be Tim Thomas, talented but lazy, than Anthony Johnson, hardworking but a scrub. Mostly cause I know I'd be the best PF in the game if I were Thomas.

Ballings7 · Post #10 » by **Ballings7** » Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:51 am

Both is a requirement.

But talent is a more important factor to have, as a base.

Individually, both kinds of biased players are valuable to have, but it depends on each player's overall make-up and how they go about things.

tha_rock220 · Post #11 » by **tha_rock220** » Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:42 am

You have to have both. Chuck Hayes isn't particularly talented, but he works his ass off every game to rebound and play defense. Gerald Green has all the talent in the world, but he doesn't bother trying to put it all together. That being said, Gerald Green will probably get a ton of shots between now and his 25th birthday because teams will be willing to take a chance with him based on his talent. If Chuck Hayes starts playing poorly he'll be out of the league and he'll have a tough time getting back into it.

Also, please stop mentioning NBA all-stars and saying they give effort to make up for a lack up talent. Allen Iverson??? Steve Nash??? You're talking about 2 of the league's 30 most talented players.

whipdamage · Post #12 » by **whipdamage** » Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:48 am

nash has good court vision.
nash has good accuracy with jumpers and free throws.

nash does not have elite jumping talent.
nash does not have the top 10 fastest cross-overs in the nba.
nash does not seem to have the strength to back-push and post up point guards.

i didn't mean to imply that nash has 0 talent.

whipdamage · Post #13 » by **whipdamage** » Sat Apr 26, 2008 8:21 am

this data supports my position that shawn marion should have gotten more credit for the phoenix suns's success.

game 1, parker shot 0% from three point range and had 6 turnovers. he shot his best percentage of the series in this game.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200705060PHO.html

game 2 last year in the 2007 playoffs, tony parker shot 35.7%
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200705080PHO.html

game 3, parker shot 38.9%
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200705120SAS.html

game 4, parker shot 9 for 19 with 0/1 from three point range and 5 turnovers.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200705140SAS.html

game 5, parker shot 38.5%
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200705160PHO.html

in game 6, which was the final game, parker shot 40.7%
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200705180SAS.html

it may be that shawn marion adjusted his defense after game 1.

FlashFlood · Post #14 » by **FlashFlood** » Sat Apr 26, 2008 8:43 am

whipdamage wrote:nash has good court vision.
nash has good accuracy with jumpers and free throws.

nash does not have elite jumping talent.
nash does not have the top 10 fastest cross-overs in the nba.
nash does not seem to have the strength to back-push and post up point guards.

i didn't mean to imply that nash has 0 talent.

Just to support this, I am of the belief that Nash is blessed with arguably the most accurate shot in the league. I'm sure the stats are arguably in line with my belief but I've got a story. One time Steve played in my city as some part of exhibition for charity or promotion or somecrap like that. Either way you could tell he didn't try at all in the game because he only took 3 pters and passed off every time. What made him stand out was that all those 3s he took? He shot em at halfcourt, no joke. HALFCOURT! It's one thing to take crazy shots like that but it's another to make em...

IMO Nash isn't talented physically, but he's not just skilled, he's as smart as they come.

As for Marion... Yeah no doubt he had a large effect on the game. The Suns are without a world-level defender at this point... replacing him is impossible.. Who else gets 2 stls 2 blks? Josh Smith? Kirilenko sometimes? He's so rare, but theoretically not as rare as Shaq, an agile 7'0" 300lbs monster. Where Kerr messed up is Shaq replicates alot of what Amare does, and costed them structural flaws to the team. More power, but less outside shooting, less speed, and no more elite-level defensive stopper to place on penetrating lead guards.

whipdamage · Post #15 » by **whipdamage** » Sat Apr 26, 2008 8:44 am

i think that steve nash benefited from coaching style. for most of his career, nash has been given the freedom to make his own decisions on the court whether it's pulling up for a 3 on a fastbreak or making a behind-the-back pass to stoudemire. don nelson in dallas and d'antoni in phoenix.

if nash were to be in a more half-court oriented offense under scott skiles, then i think his numbers would decrease.

an example that would support my position here is the case of rafer alston having adelman as coach. rafer alston improved his drive finishing rate.

"Last season, Alston finished on 49 percent of his drives, about 12 percent off the NBA average. This season, he is at 59 percent, roughly the league average and well ahead of the average for guards."
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/bk/bkn/5432580.html

jeff van gundy made a remark of regret when he said on a telecast that he should have given more freedom to alston to shoot the 3.

alston improved his field goal percentage by about 2 percent and increased his PER rating. yao ming went down with an injury, and it's possible that alston's numbers would have improved more.

i'm particularly interested in alston's 2nd half of the season numbers when the rockets went on a 22 game win streak. it's possible that it took a while in the season for the players to adjust to adelman's style. is there a site that shows 2nd half of the season stats?

Ballings7 · Post #16 » by **Ballings7** » Sat Apr 26, 2008 9:16 am

Actually, I thought it was Adelman adjusting his approach to the players... before wasn't he trying to significantly implement the Princeton-style offense? Then after he saw it wasn't fitting, he went back to a more familar system. The defense also suffered with getting out of sync offensively, and also what was going on was not knowing all the players yet and who he wants to use.

That's what I gathered from an outsider perspective...

whipdamage · Post #17 » by **whipdamage** » Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:00 am

rick adelman gives a lot of freedom to his players. have you seen the sacramento kings play a couple years ago?

i wish i didn't have to use rafer alston as an example because his numbers aren't that good, but i think having adelman had an effect on him.

whipdamage · Post #18 » by **whipdamage** » Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:09 am

it was a tnt telecast with jeff van gundy commentating. a rockets game. gundy said something to the effect of, "if only i had given rafer the green light to shoot the 3". i think the rockets may have won that game.

if someone could post the video on youtube or something, that would be nice.

Ballings7 · Post #19 » by **Ballings7** » Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:09 am

Yeah, I did.

But that's just what I came to know of about them earlier in the seasom, from seeing them play at times then, and hearing and reading various things. A solid Rockets fan will elaborate for us, eventually, I'd guess.

I don't know the specifics, but I do know in a way, Adelman definitely did have an effect on him, because he was pro-Alston in October, he liked him instantly in pre-season. Which was after me and a lot of others, thought Rafer would be dealt or not play because of the summer issue he had. Along with bringing in Francis and James, who just didn't work out at all really. I didn't think they needed to get both James and Francis, anyway.

And yeah, like you said, giving him freedom is part of their good relationship.

Ultimately again, Rick got the most out of his team. When early on into it, it was going bad and the team wasn't right. Rick adjusted and evolved in familairty with his team.

whipdamage · Post #20 » by **whipdamage** » Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:16 am

as some people know, rafer alston is a former and1 player. it is possible that rick adelman brought out alston's driving ability more which would explain the drive percentage increase from 49% to 59%.

giving alston more freedom to shoot the 3 may not necessarily cause alston to improve his 3 point shooting ability.

i still maintain that more freedom and less restriction can have a positive effect on certain point guards.

again, i wish i didn't have to use rafer alston as an example.