Twenty-eight Magicians and Dwayne Bacon

[CZ Eddie]

Bacon was player #40 in Markelle's draft.
https://www.basketball-reference.com/draft/NBA_2017.html

[pepe1991]

If only Bacon is 22, he would have been compared with Paul George

You're being snarky, but development does happen even if it's not at the all-star level.

You have this... I'll call it interesting... mindset where if a guy doesn't seem like he's going to become an all-star caliber player, then he doesn't matter.

And like that's fine in the grand scheme of things, but there's also 480 guys in the league at a given time and only 24 make the all-star team each year.

No team in the league has a rotation full of all-stars. Obviously everybody wants as many all-star caliber players as they can get, but teams still need the guys who aren't at that level to still improve and ultimately become the best version of themselves even if they're role players because 90% of the league aren't all-stars anyway.

If Bacon was having the year he's having now as a 20 year old rookie, then there would obviously be a lot more optimism that he'd be able to improve upon his weaknesses over time. Not every player does improve on their weaknesses, but the younger you are the more time and runway you have to do so.

But as a two-year college and now four-year NBA guy, you pretty much know what you have in Bacon and it obviously isn't good enough.

RJ Hampton since joining the Magic has been statistically pretty comparable to Bacon. But Bacon is considered a complete scrub and Hampton is considered someone with upside. Why? Because that six year age gap is quite massive from a developmental perspective.

Player who is not going to become allstar, actually does not matter, when it comes to building future roster, because non-allstars are disposable and replacable bodies.
There are 480 nba guys, but only 20-30 actually high impact players that change outcomes of a games by themselfs.

And sure, from time to time there is some Atlanta Hawks 60 wins a season team that ends up being season overachiver and playoff underachiver because, as i've said, only 20-30 players actually "matter".

No team in nba has rotation of allstars but every single contender has at least 2 elite players.

Lakers- Davis, Lebron
Clippers- George, Leonard
Utah - Gobert, Mitchell ( Conley)
76ers- Embiid, Simmons
Nets - big 3
Nuggets- Jokic, Murray (when healthy)


and roster around them is replacable. Sure, you want to maximise to their strenghts and have as deep roster as it's possible, but you look at 2019-20 Lakers. What was their depth really? Washed up Rondo, Quinn Cook, Markieff Morris, Caruso and Howard. Those 5 would struggle to beat Cavs today. But it didn't matter. Top tear talent propelled those scrubs to championship roster.

I have zero desire to watch teams waste their time in development of future Jordan Clarkson's or Kelly Oubre's of the world.
Sure , on very specific team with very specific need they wlil look solid or even great, but on teams like Magic; Kings, Cavs, Pistons, T wolves and other bottom feeders it feels like never ending circle of developing future rotation peaces for future good teams so you can take next vawe of future rotation peaces and develop them for next incomming vawe of good teams, while in same time never having star to build on roster around, mostly because you stick with wrong assets for ages.

Bacon is prime example why nothing on bad team matters. In month of march he is averaging 17 ppg on 50% FG and 56,6% TS. He also pulls up 4 rebounds and 2 assists. Albet terrible 3%.
but what makes him interesting is fact that same Dwayne Bacon was "bridge" excuse why Jonathan Isaac wasn't scoring more at college. I remember very specific arguments with many of you how Isaac is not developed offensive player. Yet most of you used Dwayne Bacon as excuse why. "He just plays Robin to Bacon". And, ofc,he wasn't. He was "Robin" to Bacon because he was fairly limited, and Bacon, himself, was pretty mediocre player that only had 1 college skill going- somewhat solid size and sometimes ability to put up his own shots.


Look, my point is simple, only stars matter. Every semi-qualified GM can make somewhat logical roster if he has Durant and Harden on his team. It's not rocket science to pair them with 1 shooter, 1 defender and 1 decent rim protector.
But it's hopless to ever become contender if your highest ceiling guy is RJ Hampton.

[tiderulz]

If only Bacon is 22, he would have been compared with Paul George

You're being snarky, but development does happen even if it's not at the all-star level.

You have this... I'll call it interesting... mindset where if a guy doesn't seem like he's going to become an all-star caliber player, then he doesn't matter.

And like that's fine in the grand scheme of things, but there's also 480 guys in the league at a given time and only 24 make the all-star team each year.

No team in the league has a rotation full of all-stars. Obviously everybody wants as many all-star caliber players as they can get, but teams still need the guys who aren't at that level to still improve and ultimately become the best version of themselves even if they're role players because 90% of the league aren't all-stars anyway.

If Bacon was having the year he's having now as a 20 year old rookie, then there would obviously be a lot more optimism that he'd be able to improve upon his weaknesses over time. Not every player does improve on their weaknesses, but the younger you are the more time and runway you have to do so.

But as a two-year college and now four-year NBA guy, you pretty much know what you have in Bacon and it obviously isn't good enough.

RJ Hampton since joining the Magic has been statistically pretty comparable to Bacon. But Bacon is considered a complete scrub and Hampton is considered someone with upside. Why? Because that six year age gap is quite massive from a developmental perspective.

Player who is not going to become allstar, actually does not matter, when it comes to building future roster, because non-allstars are disposable and replacable bodies.
There are 480 nba guys, but only 20-30 actually high impact players that change outcomes of a games by themselfs.

And sure, from time to time there is some Atlanta Hawks 60 wins a season team that ends up being season overachiver and playoff underachiver because, as i've said, only 20-30 players actually "matter".

No team in nba has rotation of allstars but every single contender has at least 2 elite players.

Lakers- Davis, Lebron
Clippers- George, Leonard
Utah - Gobert, Mitchell ( Conley)
76ers- Embiid, Simmons
Nets - big 3
Nuggets- Jokic, Murray (when healthy)


and roster around them is replacable. Sure, you want to maximise to their strenghts and have as deep roster as it's possible, but you look at 2019-20 Lakers. What was their depth really? Washed up Rondo, Quinn Cook, Markieff Morris, Caruso and Howard. Those 5 would struggle to beat Cavs today. But it didn't matter. Top tear talent propelled those scrubs to championship roster.

I have zero desire to watch teams waste their time in development of future Jordan Clarkson's or Kelly Oubre's of the world.
Sure , on very specific team with very specific need they wlil look solid or even great, but on teams like Magic; Kings, Cavs, Pistons, T wolves and other bottom feeders it feels like never ending circle of developing future rotation peaces for future good teams so you can take next vawe of future rotation peaces and develop them for next incomming vawe of good teams, while in same time never having star to build on roster around, mostly because you stick with wrong assets for ages.

sorry, bad take. There are many players that do matter and are not replaceable that are not all-stars. you have critical role players that are important to their team. Does it mean a team wouldnt trade them if it improved them, no. But for example, the Lakers dont win last year without Rondo and he wasnt playing like an all-star last year. there is this thing called a salary cap and unless you get the exact right players that can mesh, you need those non all-star players to be there.

[pepe1991]

You're being snarky, but development does happen even if it's not at the all-star level.

You have this... I'll call it interesting... mindset where if a guy doesn't seem like he's going to become an all-star caliber player, then he doesn't matter.

And like that's fine in the grand scheme of things, but there's also 480 guys in the league at a given time and only 24 make the all-star team each year.

No team in the league has a rotation full of all-stars. Obviously everybody wants as many all-star caliber players as they can get, but teams still need the guys who aren't at that level to still improve and ultimately become the best version of themselves even if they're role players because 90% of the league aren't all-stars anyway.

If Bacon was having the year he's having now as a 20 year old rookie, then there would obviously be a lot more optimism that he'd be able to improve upon his weaknesses over time. Not every player does improve on their weaknesses, but the younger you are the more time and runway you have to do so.

But as a two-year college and now four-year NBA guy, you pretty much know what you have in Bacon and it obviously isn't good enough.

RJ Hampton since joining the Magic has been statistically pretty comparable to Bacon. But Bacon is considered a complete scrub and Hampton is considered someone with upside. Why? Because that six year age gap is quite massive from a developmental perspective.

Player who is not going to become allstar, actually does not matter, when it comes to building future roster, because non-allstars are disposable and replacable bodies.
There are 480 nba guys, but only 20-30 actually high impact players that change outcomes of a games by themselfs.

And sure, from time to time there is some Atlanta Hawks 60 wins a season team that ends up being season overachiver and playoff underachiver because, as i've said, only 20-30 players actually "matter".

No team in nba has rotation of allstars but every single contender has at least 2 elite players.

Lakers- Davis, Lebron
Clippers- George, Leonard
Utah - Gobert, Mitchell ( Conley)
76ers- Embiid, Simmons
Nets - big 3
Nuggets- Jokic, Murray (when healthy)


and roster around them is replacable. Sure, you want to maximise to their strenghts and have as deep roster as it's possible, but you look at 2019-20 Lakers. What was their depth really? Washed up Rondo, Quinn Cook, Markieff Morris, Caruso and Howard. Those 5 would struggle to beat Cavs today. But it didn't matter. Top tear talent propelled those scrubs to championship roster.

I have zero desire to watch teams waste their time in development of future Jordan Clarkson's or Kelly Oubre's of the world.
Sure , on very specific team with very specific need they wlil look solid or even great, but on teams like Magic; Kings, Cavs, Pistons, T wolves and other bottom feeders it feels like never ending circle of developing future rotation peaces for future good teams so you can take next vawe of future rotation peaces and develop them for next incomming vawe of good teams, while in same time never having star to build on roster around, mostly because you stick with wrong assets for ages.

sorry, bad take. There are many players that do matter and are not replaceable that are not all-stars. you have critical role players that are important to their team. Does it mean a team wouldnt trade them if it improved them, no. But for example, the Lakers dont win last year without Rondo and he wasnt playing like an all-star last year. there is this thing called a salary cap and unless you get the exact right players that can mesh, you need those non all-star players to be there.

Who is critical role player that makes huge difference but isn't allstar on Clippers, Lakers, Bucks and Nets?

Kyle Kuzma, Ivica Zubac and Joe Harris and Divicenzo ?
Replacable, disposable, interchangeable.

Rondo just happend to be 4 times allstar in his career , 4 times was all nba defender, 2 times lead league in assists....

Bad take is to think Lakers won game because of Rondo. Davis and Lebron scored 65 points on 35 shots. Take one of them and it's runaway L for Lakers.

[tiderulz]

Player who is not going to become allstar, actually does not matter, when it comes to building future roster, because non-allstars are disposable and replacable bodies.
There are 480 nba guys, but only 20-30 actually high impact players that change outcomes of a games by themselfs.

And sure, from time to time there is some Atlanta Hawks 60 wins a season team that ends up being season overachiver and playoff underachiver because, as i've said, only 20-30 players actually "matter".

No team in nba has rotation of allstars but every single contender has at least 2 elite players.

Lakers- Davis, Lebron
Clippers- George, Leonard
Utah - Gobert, Mitchell ( Conley)
76ers- Embiid, Simmons
Nets - big 3
Nuggets- Jokic, Murray (when healthy)


and roster around them is replacable. Sure, you want to maximise to their strenghts and have as deep roster as it's possible, but you look at 2019-20 Lakers. What was their depth really? Washed up Rondo, Quinn Cook, Markieff Morris, Caruso and Howard. Those 5 would struggle to beat Cavs today. But it didn't matter. Top tear talent propelled those scrubs to championship roster.

I have zero desire to watch teams waste their time in development of future Jordan Clarkson's or Kelly Oubre's of the world.
Sure , on very specific team with very specific need they wlil look solid or even great, but on teams like Magic; Kings, Cavs, Pistons, T wolves and other bottom feeders it feels like never ending circle of developing future rotation peaces for future good teams so you can take next vawe of future rotation peaces and develop them for next incomming vawe of good teams, while in same time never having star to build on roster around, mostly because you stick with wrong assets for ages.

sorry, bad take. There are many players that do matter and are not replaceable that are not all-stars. you have critical role players that are important to their team. Does it mean a team wouldnt trade them if it improved them, no. But for example, the Lakers dont win last year without Rondo and he wasnt playing like an all-star last year. there is this thing called a salary cap and unless you get the exact right players that can mesh, you need those non all-star players to be there.

Who is critical role player that makes huge difference but isn't allstar on Clippers, Lakers, Bucks and Nets?

Kyle Kuzma, Ivica Zubac and Joe Harris and Divicenzo ?
Replacable, disposable, interchangeable.

Rondo just happend to be 4 times allstar in his career , 4 times was all nba defender, 2 times lead league in assists....

Bad take is to think Lakers won game because of Rondo. Davis and Lebron scored 65 points on 35 shots. Take one of them and it's runaway L for Lakers.

Clips had PG and Kawhi and lost to Denver. PG didnt show up and they needed their role players. Lou Williams, usually their microwave scorer off the bench, was horrible. Marcus Morris and Montrez were up and down and not consistent. LA couldnt win with just their 2 All-stars.

Yes, Rondo was an all-star but like 7 years ago. He is a non-all-star role player for half a decade. And if you watched those games, Rondo was critical for LA to win. just his overall control of the game, defensive plays. Yes obviously LA doesnt win without Lebron and Davis doing their thing, but they needed help

[pepe1991]

sorry, bad take. There are many players that do matter and are not replaceable that are not all-stars. you have critical role players that are important to their team. Does it mean a team wouldnt trade them if it improved them, no. But for example, the Lakers dont win last year without Rondo and he wasnt playing like an all-star last year. there is this thing called a salary cap and unless you get the exact right players that can mesh, you need those non all-star players to be there.

Who is critical role player that makes huge difference but isn't allstar on Clippers, Lakers, Bucks and Nets?

Kyle Kuzma, Ivica Zubac and Joe Harris and Divicenzo ?
Replacable, disposable, interchangeable.

Rondo just happend to be 4 times allstar in his career , 4 times was all nba defender, 2 times lead league in assists....

Bad take is to think Lakers won game because of Rondo. Davis and Lebron scored 65 points on 35 shots. Take one of them and it's runaway L for Lakers.

Clips had PG and Kawhi and lost to Denver. PG didnt show up and they needed their role players. Lou Williams, usually their microwave scorer off the bench, was horrible. Marcus Morris and Montrez were up and down and not consistent. LA couldnt win with just their 2 All-stars.

Yes, Rondo was an all-star but like 7 years ago. He is a non-all-star role player for half a decade. And if you watched those games, Rondo was critical for LA to win. just his overall control of the game, defensive plays. Yes obviously LA doesnt win without Lebron and Davis doing their thing, but they needed help

LA couldnt win with just their 2 All-stars.

NIce way to spin point to get point across. How about Denver, team with future MVP and Murray ,who came off 31 ppg vs Utah, was simply better than PG and KL?
Elimination game Murray scores 40 points. JOkic has 16 points, 22 rebounds, 13 assists. Kawhi and George combine for 10-40 from the field. Burrial by best opponetns players over opponents best players. Yet another case of my point. Tnx for pointing it tho.

Yes, Rondo was an all-star but like 7 years ago. He is a non-all-star role player for half a decade. And if you watched those games, Rondo was critical for LA to win. just his overall control of the game, defensive plays. Yes obviously LA doesnt win without Lebron and Davis doing their thing, but they needed help

he also scored 2 ,4,4 and 7 points in other games. Guess who was there to carry them to wins?

[pepe1991]

I really don't get what are you trying to debate here. Lakers have 2 top 5 players and incredible amount of scrubs and replacment and bench players that they rotate and still win games and are still contender.
On other side you have Spurs, who are filled with solid players ( Derozan, Murray, White, Aldrige , Walker, Johnson, Gay, Mills,Pelti, Dieng... ) and who probably won't make playoffs. But if you give them 65 games of Giannis, gess who would be in playoffs?

it's such a ridicilous debate, nba is superstar driven league. One superstar is worth more than all supporting casts in the world.

And superstars wlil elevate those role players anyway.

[tiderulz]

I really don't get what are you trying to debate here. Lakers have 2 top 5 players and incredible amount of scrubs and replacment and bench players that they rotate and still win games and are still contender.
On other side you have Spurs, who are filled with solid players ( Derozan, Murray, White, Aldrige , Walker, Johnson, Gay, Mills,Pelti, Dieng... ) and who probably won't make playoffs. But if you give them 65 games of Giannis, gess who would be in playoffs?

it's such a ridicilous debate, nba is superstar driven league. One superstar is worth more than all supporting casts in the world.

And superstars wlil elevate those role players anyway.

you said players who arent all-stars dont matter and are replaceable. Key role players are critical to title teams.

[pepe1991]

I really don't get what are you trying to debate here. Lakers have 2 top 5 players and incredible amount of scrubs and replacment and bench players that they rotate and still win games and are still contender.
On other side you have Spurs, who are filled with solid players ( Derozan, Murray, White, Aldrige , Walker, Johnson, Gay, Mills,Pelti, Dieng... ) and who probably won't make playoffs. But if you give them 65 games of Giannis, gess who would be in playoffs?

it's such a ridicilous debate, nba is superstar driven league. One superstar is worth more than all supporting casts in the world.

And superstars wlil elevate those role players anyway.

you said players who arent all-stars dont matter and are replaceable. Key role players are critical to title teams.

Allstar raise ceiling of whole team and make role players better.
Case and point KCP on Pistons mediocre fringe starter on 13 ppg /51,9% TS with Reggie Jackson, Tobias Harris , Drummond and Morris.

KCP with Lebron and Davis - starter on championship team who makes critical 3 point shots.

Less role players need to do, better they look. You can mish-mash whole supporting cast around Nets and they still win many games as long as Harden, Irving and Durant play. They played 27 players this year. Twenty-seven.
They are so louded with Durant ; IRving and Harden that they can bring Mike James, former Suns castoff, second round player Claxston, Bruce Bowen, whatever is left from Blake Griffin, Tyler Johnson ( also was out of nba) and still beat Nuggets & Suns. Because it doesn't matter. Harden , Irving & Durant will give them 90 points, others just need to get rebounds and combine for like 20 points for them to win.

Or you telling me that Jeff Green and Blake Griffin are "graet supporting cast"

Again, it doesn't take genious to put funcional team around superstars, it takes genious GM to get you superstars. There is no point of wasting time in development of supporting cast, if there is nobody to support.

[tiderulz]

I really don't get what are you trying to debate here. Lakers have 2 top 5 players and incredible amount of scrubs and replacment and bench players that they rotate and still win games and are still contender.
On other side you have Spurs, who are filled with solid players ( Derozan, Murray, White, Aldrige , Walker, Johnson, Gay, Mills,Pelti, Dieng... ) and who probably won't make playoffs. But if you give them 65 games of Giannis, gess who would be in playoffs?

it's such a ridicilous debate, nba is superstar driven league. One superstar is worth more than all supporting casts in the world.

And superstars wlil elevate those role players anyway.

you said players who arent all-stars dont matter and are replaceable. Key role players are critical to title teams.

Allstar raise ceiling of whole team and make role players better.
Case and point KCP on Pistons mediocre fringe starter on 13 ppg /51,9% TS with Reggie Jackson, Tobias Harris , Drummond and Morris.

KCP with Lebron and Davis - starter on championship team who makes critical 3 point shots.

Less role players need to do, better they look. You can mish-mash whole supporting cast around Nets and they still win many games as long as Harden, Irving and Durant play. They played 27 players this year. Twenty-seven.
They are so louded with Durant ; IRving and Harden that they can bring Mike James, former Suns castoff, second round player Claxston, Bruce Bowen, whatever is left from Blake Griffin, Tyler Johnson ( also was out of nba) and still beat Nuggets & Suns. Because it doesn't matter. Harden , Irving & Durant will give them 90 points, others just need to get rebounds and combine for like 20 points for them to win.

Or you telling me that Jeff Green and Blake Griffin are "graet supporting cast"

Again, it doesn't take genious to put funcional team around superstars, it takes genious GM to get you superstars. There is no point of wasting time in development of supporting cast, if there is nobody to support.

some all-stars do, many dont raise their team or make role players better. Who has Bradley Beal really made better with Washington? Who did Nik make better?

Most All-star selections are just fan popular vote.

And KCP, still sucks, he just rode Lebron/AD to get a ring. Notice there were not people beating his door down to sign him. Then look at Jerami Grant who was a role player in Denver who had many teams wanting him. I think we can all agree, Grant is a better role player than KCP and you could see the difference with Denver in the early part of the season. Shoot, they traded for AG to replace what Grant gave them.

[pepe1991]

you said players who arent all-stars dont matter and are replaceable. Key role players are critical to title teams.

Allstar raise ceiling of whole team and make role players better.
Case and point KCP on Pistons mediocre fringe starter on 13 ppg /51,9% TS with Reggie Jackson, Tobias Harris , Drummond and Morris.

KCP with Lebron and Davis - starter on championship team who makes critical 3 point shots.

Less role players need to do, better they look. You can mish-mash whole supporting cast around Nets and they still win many games as long as Harden, Irving and Durant play. They played 27 players this year. Twenty-seven.
They are so louded with Durant ; IRving and Harden that they can bring Mike James, former Suns castoff, second round player Claxston, Bruce Bowen, whatever is left from Blake Griffin, Tyler Johnson ( also was out of nba) and still beat Nuggets & Suns. Because it doesn't matter. Harden , Irving & Durant will give them 90 points, others just need to get rebounds and combine for like 20 points for them to win.

Or you telling me that Jeff Green and Blake Griffin are "graet supporting cast"

Again, it doesn't take genious to put funcional team around superstars, it takes genious GM to get you superstars. There is no point of wasting time in development of supporting cast, if there is nobody to support.

some all-stars do, many dont raise their team or make role players better. Who has Bradley Beal really made better with Washington? Who did Nik make better?

Most All-star selections are just fan popular vote.

And KCP, still sucks, he just rode Lebron/AD to get a ring. Notice there were not people beating his door down to sign him. Then look at Jerami Grant who was a role player in Denver who had many teams wanting him. I think we can all agree, Grant is a better role player than KCP and you could see the difference with Denver in the early part of the season. Shoot, they traded for AG to replace what Grant gave them.

KCP averaged 12,8 ppg in nba finals, 11ppg in WCF...
Jerami Grant on Detroit looks like allstar level player,but once you put him in his "correct" role he is what he was for Denver. Distant 3rd to 4th option on very good team.


i really don't know what is arguable here. You want stars and high impact players, than you put right role players around them. not other way around. What execlly is here to debate ? You would rather have 2018-19 Magic of 2020-21 Nets team? Because those teams are definition of: "supporting cast roster" vs " superstars roster". It's clear wich one will achive more.

[tiderulz]

Allstar raise ceiling of whole team and make role players better.
Case and point KCP on Pistons mediocre fringe starter on 13 ppg /51,9% TS with Reggie Jackson, Tobias Harris , Drummond and Morris.

KCP with Lebron and Davis - starter on championship team who makes critical 3 point shots.

Less role players need to do, better they look. You can mish-mash whole supporting cast around Nets and they still win many games as long as Harden, Irving and Durant play. They played 27 players this year. Twenty-seven.
They are so louded with Durant ; IRving and Harden that they can bring Mike James, former Suns castoff, second round player Claxston, Bruce Bowen, whatever is left from Blake Griffin, Tyler Johnson ( also was out of nba) and still beat Nuggets & Suns. Because it doesn't matter. Harden , Irving & Durant will give them 90 points, others just need to get rebounds and combine for like 20 points for them to win.

Or you telling me that Jeff Green and Blake Griffin are "graet supporting cast"

Again, it doesn't take genious to put funcional team around superstars, it takes genious GM to get you superstars. There is no point of wasting time in development of supporting cast, if there is nobody to support.

some all-stars do, many dont raise their team or make role players better. Who has Bradley Beal really made better with Washington? Who did Nik make better?

Most All-star selections are just fan popular vote.

And KCP, still sucks, he just rode Lebron/AD to get a ring. Notice there were not people beating his door down to sign him. Then look at Jerami Grant who was a role player in Denver who had many teams wanting him. I think we can all agree, Grant is a better role player than KCP and you could see the difference with Denver in the early part of the season. Shoot, they traded for AG to replace what Grant gave them.

KCP averaged 12,8 ppg in nba finals, 11ppg in WCF...
Jerami Grant on Detroit looks like allstar level player,but once you put him in his "correct" role he is what he was for Denver. Distant 3rd to 4th option on very good team.


i really don't know what is arguable here. You want stars and high impact players, than you put right role players around them. not other way around. What execlly is here to debate ? You would rather have 2018-19 Magic of 2020-21 Nets team? Because those teams are definition of: "supporting cast roster" vs " superstars roster". It's clear wich one will achive more.

but the winning teams dont just get any role players, they get the right ones. You said players that arent all-stars dont matter and are replaceable. you are wrong in that opinion. Yes, you want your all-stars first, but you need the right role players, otherwise the Bucks with Giannis would be making finals, Kawhi and PG would have made the finals last year, for 2 examples. you have to have the right role players with the all-stars.

[pepe1991]

some all-stars do, many dont raise their team or make role players better. Who has Bradley Beal really made better with Washington? Who did Nik make better?

Most All-star selections are just fan popular vote.

And KCP, still sucks, he just rode Lebron/AD to get a ring. Notice there were not people beating his door down to sign him. Then look at Jerami Grant who was a role player in Denver who had many teams wanting him. I think we can all agree, Grant is a better role player than KCP and you could see the difference with Denver in the early part of the season. Shoot, they traded for AG to replace what Grant gave them.

KCP averaged 12,8 ppg in nba finals, 11ppg in WCF...
Jerami Grant on Detroit looks like allstar level player,but once you put him in his "correct" role he is what he was for Denver. Distant 3rd to 4th option on very good team.


i really don't know what is arguable here. You want stars and high impact players, than you put right role players around them. not other way around. What execlly is here to debate ? You would rather have 2018-19 Magic of 2020-21 Nets team? Because those teams are definition of: "supporting cast roster" vs " superstars roster". It's clear wich one will achive more.

but the winning teams dont just get any role players, they get the right ones. You said players that arent all-stars dont matter and are replaceable. you are wrong in that opinion. Yes, you want your all-stars first, but you need the right role players, otherwise the Bucks with Giannis would be making finals, Kawhi and PG would have made the finals last year, for 2 examples. you have to have the right role players with the all-stars.

There are literally 100-150"good" role players if you can put them in right system.

Without even trying hard this is list of "shooters" that are not stars, who go from cheap to expensive ,regardless of situation and that you can add or find similar replacment:
Clarkson
Beasley
Joe Harris
Hardaway
Eric Gordon
Bojan Bogdanovic
Bogdan Bogdanovic
Fournier
Dort
Crowder
Ingles
Bullock
Huerter
Ross
Nunn
Greyson Allen
Divicenzo
Monk
Finney Smith
Seth Curry
Burks
Barton
Kennard
Mulder
Temple
McDermott

That's 29 ( i think ) players who fit role of shooter. So basically every team can have at least one

let's move on. Rebounder (shotblocker)
Noel
Beucher
Capela
Turner
Poelti
Holmes
Williams
Allen
Gafford
Ayton
Adams
Plumlee
Thompson
Zubac
Valencinuas
Carter jr
Stewart
Wood
Reid
WCS

Again, easy list of 20 non allstars that kind a all do the same job.

Basically whole league can have 1 without issue. Some of those guys are fringe rotation players on current teams and i didn't even use Howard, Jordan or Brook Lopez due their former "stardom" or Embiid & Adebayo due current allstar pedigree.

It's not hard to put role players around great players. Most of them are in nba because they can fill that specific role. It's their job. What's difficult is find guys who are top 20 players, who change tragjectory of a team. Adding peaces around them is easier part.

[fendilim]

To me, Dwayne can get a much bigger contract. He is the leading scorer for several games this season and most importan, he can make his own shots.

He is my fav player on the team

This guy may be Dwayne Bacon

[MagicTownBaller]

Did someone actually say Bacon was their favorite player? I'm at a loss