PhillyArena Forums
PhillyArena Community => NBA Discussion => Topic started by: ziggy on February 28, 2005, 12:45:29 PM
-
This is part of an article from Minneapolis regarding Joel Pryzbilla. The interesting quote was from Kevin McHale
"About 20 percent of our league can play on any team," Timberwolves coach and vice president Kevin McHale said Sunday, before his team's 91-83 victory over the Trail Blazers. "The other 80 percent is all situational, as far as how you look. You get in the wrong situation, you don't look very good."
So what do you guys think about that? Is McHale correct? Is that 20% number stretching it a bit, or is it about right? Is this really the "key" to winning in the NBA? Identify the 11 to 13 players on your 15 man roster who's success is dependent upon being in the right situation and then determine which ones aren't and then find someone who would fit better?
If you agree who on your team is in a bad situation and would flourish somewhere else?
Wolves update: Przybilla discovers the right situation
February 28, 2005
PORTLAND, ORE. -- Three teams and five seasons into his NBA career, Joel Przybilla finally has found a home with the Portland Trail Blazers.
Which, all things considered, isn't that long or so many stops after all.
"About 20 percent of our league can play on any team," Timberwolves coach and vice president Kevin McHale said Sunday, before his team's 91-83 victory over the Trail Blazers. "The other 80 percent is all situational, as far as how you look. You get in the wrong situation, you don't look very good.
"He's got a good situation. They're asking him to do what he does well. They're not asking him to do what he doesn't do well. By doing that, he's around the basket more, he's the recipient of more drives, more opportunities on the offensive glass, a lot of stuff."
-
I'd say it's more like 60/40.
-
I agree with dbods -- it's more like 60/40 -- not 80/20. And I will state that even the best players in the league will even be better under a system (mainly because role players will be better support because of that system) -- MJ is a great example, he would have still flourished but the Triangle offense made his teammates better which meant it was more difficult to double/triple team.
-
I'd say it's more like 60/40.
Going with the proposition that 40% of the players on each team would be successful no matter where they played, on a 15 man roster that means that 6 players would fall into that category.
Who on the Sixers would you see being those 6?
Not an expert on the Sixers, but I would say the AI, CWebb, and Iguodala would be for sure. Korver would probably as well. Who would you see as the other 2?
-
Looking at the Blazers, I think that Zach Randolph, Shareef Abdur Rahim, Nick Van Exel and Damon Stoudamire could play on just about any team.
Theo on quite a few, but he has not been successful this year in Portland, mainly due to injuries. At the same time his career has been up and down, so it is clear he fits with some teams and not with others.
Darius Miles would fall into the right situation category, because that has been his career. DA would be much like Miles, same with Patterson, and of course all the remaining would need the right situation.
-
For the Sixers, AI, Webber and Iguodala are locks. I'd say Dalembert's game can, although his mental aspect will have him nailed to the pine by some coaches, although that's not really a system thing.
I'd list McKie as the 5th, even though age is catching up to him. And I think John Salmons could contribute on any team in the league, as a role player of course.
Korver's borderline. Right now I'd say he's a system player. A hustling system player, but a person who works well next to Iverson and Webber. But a little bit of improvement in his game and I could see him fitting.
-
For the Sixers, AI, Webber and Iguodala are locks. I'd say Dalembert's game can, although his mental aspect will have him nailed to the pine by some coaches, although that's not really a system thing.
I'd list McKie as the 5th, even though age is catching up to him. And I think John Salmons could contribute on any team in the league, as a role player of course.
Korver's borderline. Right now I'd say he's a system player. A hustling system player, but a person who works well next to Iverson and Webber. But a little bit of improvement in his game and I could see him fitting.
Like I said I am not an expert on the Sixers, but I would have to disagree on McKie. Two years ago, and I would agree, but today I don't think so. I think there are at least 6 teams where he would make little to no contribution.
Dalembert's struggles this year I think also illustrate McHale's point. Maybe it is the mental aspect, but I think he would struggle if not in the right situation. He could thrive in some cases, and be ineffective in others.
Can't offer an opinion on Salmons.
This is a classic example of why I think the idea of max 4 year deals is a great thing for the NBA. This allows players in a bad situation the opportunity to get to a better one. This gets marginal talent out of the league much quicker. It opens up opportunities for deserving players who are stuck in limbo. It limits team risk of players signing bad long term deals. If the NBA wants to be the best league in the world you have to get the best players. Too many deserving players don't play in the NBA, because of circumstance, not because of a lack of talent.
The biggest reason teams in the NFL can go from being dreadful to being the the hunt for the Super Bowl in just a few years is the ability to get out from bad deals. the reason the Patriots and the Eagles have been good for a nember of years is because they have done a better job of identifying those players who don't fit and finding those that do.
-
I think McHale is a little off on this. Any player can play anywhere, but it's their ability to fit into any team that's the question.
Role players make up most of the NBA, and reguardless of the team they're on, they can contribute to the teams success. Having good role players is essential. In a league where only two players on your team are likely to be real stars, if that, role players make the difference in a team's record.
Miami is good because they have Shaq and Wade, but they also have solid role players that keep them in games when the stars are resting.
Philly got to the finals with one star and a bunch of hard-working role players. The difference there was the coaching. Larry Brown got them to play the right way and it got them far after working hard for a few years. It fell apart just as quickly due to injuries and age.
What it really comes down to is the coach and his ability to devise a system that his players can be successful in. Hardly any of them have the luxury of solid players that don't need any insturuction to play the right way consistently.
If the Sixers fail to get anywhere next year, and AI and Webber are healthy, I will be blaming O'Brien for failing to coach the right way. As it is, I think his coaching (or lack therof) has cost the Sixers a number of games.
-
I think McHale is a little off on this. Any player can play anywhere, but it's their ability to fit into any team that's the question.
Role players make up most of the NBA, and reguardless of the team they're on, they can contribute to the teams success. Having good role players is essential. In a league where only two players on your team are likely to be real stars, if that, role players make the difference in a team's record.
Miami is good because they have Shaq and Wade, but they also have solid role players that keep them in games when the stars are resting.
Philly got to the finals with one star and a bunch of hard-working role players. The difference there was the coaching. Larry Brown got them to play the right way and it got them far after working hard for a few years. It fell apart just as quickly due to injuries and age.
What it really comes down to is the coach and his ability to devise a system that his players can be successful in. Hardly any of them have the luxury of solid players that don't need any insturuction to play the right way consistently.
If the Sixers fail to get anywhere next year, and AI and Webber are healthy, I will be blaming O'Brien for failing to coach the right way. As it is, I think his coaching (or lack therof) has cost the Sixers a number of games.
Rick,
I think that is exactly what McHale is saying. He is saying that there are about 90 players that would be successful no matter what team they are on. The rest can be successful if the situation is right. The situation is the coach, the other players on the team, the committment of the front office, the type of offense being run etc. If the situation isn't right they could very well languish on the bench, or in a role that doesn't suit them.
Korver is a classic example, and I would tend to agree with Derek. Korver can play in this league, no doubt about it. His relative success or failure is highly dependent on the team he is with, and how well they utilize his skills. He could easily get on a team that doesn't need what he brings and he will get splinters.
The Lakers of the early 90's were very good at this. Ron Harper, Brian Shaw, Robert Horry, and Rick Fox were all instrumental in the Lakers winning. In another situation they could have had better individual numbers and less success, or worse numbers and less success. They fit perfectly on that team, and that team used them perfectly and they were huge contributors and they won.
-
Ziggy: When I included McKie, I was talking more skillset than what he has left in the tank. McKie at his age can barely contribute on any teams in the leauge ;)
But that's mother nature, not so much his game. Which was what I was aiming for.
-
Actually I think "role" players are exactly what McHale is talking about when he mentions 80%. There are approximately 3 (20% of 15) players per team that could go elsewhere and challenge for a starting spot. After that the rest are role players that will excel better in some situations and not so well in others. Basically this works out to about 90 players that are talented enough to be successful on most any team.
For the Sixers....AI, Webber & Iggy. After that the players need a system or defined role to excel.
For the Spurs....TD, Manu & Parker. I would have argued Barry a couple years ago but not now.
Heat...Shaq & Wade.
Lakers...Kobe & Odom.
Pistons....Ben & Billups; possibly Rip.
Mavs....Dirk; Finley is borderline and dropping - Daniels, Howard are borderline and rising.
Suns....Amare, Nash, Marion.
-
Isn't this just another way of stating that chemistry factors into the success, or lack thereof, experienced by a team based on the roster in place?
The NBA is a talent-based private club. You do not see too many guys anywhere in the League who cannot contribute something, no matter where they play. Why would anyone keep them around otherwise? Ah, because they once found the "right" system that showcased their "unique" talent and cashed in on it to the tune of a long-term contract that gets traded around the League until someone can cut the guy lose for good.
But how can that be the case? A center who was a shot-blocker, low-post defender in college with no hands and unable to shoot or pass the ball is going to be the same guy for his NBA career as well. So he is not likely going to end up on a team looking for a Vlade Divac clone, is he? The "right" system for him is not going to change from one team to the next. But on a team that is loaded with half-court shooters who like to plod up and down the court, he just might find a home as the defensive replacement guy.
Centers, as you all may realyze, are a bit different from your Korvers out there, who can at least stretch the defense by long-range shooting. A good shooter is not going to stop shooting on any team, and since scoring is still the name of the game, scorers are going to fit in just fine.
But your typical center? The NBA is clearly not getting very many really developed big men, are they? However, the genius coach who once said you can't coach height perfectly explains why some of this deadwood gets passed from system to system and never seems to find a home most of the time. I would say that at 7'1", Przybilla may have taken a typical route for the average seven footer in today's NBA.
-
Actually I think "role" players are exactly what McHale is talking about when he mentions 80%. There are approximately 3 (20% of 15) players per team that could go elsewhere and challenge for a starting spot. After that the rest are role players that will excel better in some situations and not so well in others. Basically this works out to about 90 players that are talented enough to be successful on most any team.
For the Sixers....AI, Webber & Iggy. After that the players need a system or defined role to excel.
For the Spurs....TD, Manu & Parker. I would have argued Barry a couple years ago but not now.
Heat...Shaq & Wade.
Lakers...Kobe & Odom.
Pistons....Ben & Billups; possibly Rip.
Mavs....Dirk; Finley is borderline and dropping - Daniels, Howard are borderline and rising.
Suns....Amare, Nash, Marion.
I agree with how you read that Lurker, and I find that line of thinking to be fascinating. Above I said there were 4 Blazers, but in reality I believe their is really only 1, and that is Zach. Rahim should be on the list, but he illustrates the point very well. How well a team does at identifying the top 90, and then how well they do at plugging in the next 200 dtermines success.
Cheeks did a poor job of figuring out how to get quailty contributions from Randolph, Rahim and Miles. All 3 could be in the top 90, but because of circumstances they aren't. Portland's lackluster play is a direct result of this inability to make it work.
On SA no doubt about TD, and Manu. I think Parker is much like Miles and Rahim, but Pop has done a much better job than Cheeks at figuring out how to make the situation work so that Parker can become a critical part of the team. All 3 guys have a lot of talent, but finding a way to make them fit within a winning situation is the hard part.
-
I think the real truth is about 20% of the guys in the league can't play, 20% are marginal players, 40% are average and 20% are above average.
For the Sixers,
Korver is a role player, but IMO he could be successful anywhere as a result of his skill set. Who doesn't need a player who can shoot trey's at 40%? He's trying to develop a step-in and shoot off of that, and he works hard so he's a solid role player, or will be.
Dalembert is one of those guys that's in the middle 40% now. He looks like he could be in that top 20%, but he's not quite there. Some nights, he plays great, but other nights he just collects fouls. Having a teamate like Webber will really help Sam's progress, IMO.
Willie Green and John Salmons are in there with Rodney Rogers, Marc Jackson, Kevin Ollie and Aaron McKie as in that 40% group. It's too early yet to know how far Willie and John can go, bit the rest of them are what they are, decent role players.
That leaves Iverson and Webber still in that top 20%, and Igoudala a prospect, but not there yet, either.
The other players on the roster are probably in the bottom 20%. Maybe those young players they got from Sacramento can play, but we'll have to wait a while to see....
I don't know about all the other teams, but I'm sure evey guy here could pick the ones who are players out of nearly every lineup. You know the deal, most teams only use an 8 or 9 man rotation anyway. The other 3 hardly ever get in, only in blow-outs, one way or the other.
On the good teams the difference is how deep their benches are. Teams that don't have a drop-off with the second unit are the ones that usually come out on top.
-
Isn't this just another way of stating that chemistry factors into the success, or lack thereof, experienced by a team based on the roster in place?
The NBA is a talent-based private club. You do not see too many guys anywhere in the League who cannot contribute something, no matter where they play. Why would anyone keep them around otherwise? Ah, because they once found the "right" system that showcased their "unique" talent and cashed in on it to the tune of a long-term contract that gets traded around the League until someone can cut the guy lose for good.
But how can that be the case? A center who was a shot-blocker, low-post defender in college with no hands and unable to shoot or pass the ball is going to be the same guy for his NBA career as well. So he is not likely going to end up on a team looking for a Vlade Divac clone, is he? The "right" system for him is not going to change from one team to the next. But on a team that is loaded with half-court shooters who like to plod up and down the court, he just might find a home as the defensive replacement guy.
Centers, as you all may realyze, are a bit different from your Korvers out there, who can at least stretch the defense by long-range shooting. A good shooter is not going to stop shooting on any team, and since scoring is still the name of the game, scorers are going to fit in just fine.
But your typical center? The NBA is clearly not getting very many really developed big men, are they? However, the genius coach who once said you can't coach height perfectly explains why some of this deadwood gets passed from system to system and never seems to find a home most of the time. I would say that at 7'1", Przybilla may have taken a typical route for the average seven footer in today's NBA.
Jomal,
I have been doing a lot of thinking about European players and their success or failure in the NBA. There have been 4 players from outside the US who have become "All-Stars" in the last 10 drafts. Dirk, Peja, AK47, and Yao. Why is the number so low, especially considering that America has played so poorly in the last Olympics and World Chamiponships?
I submit first and foremost it is because of the structure of the NBA, how contracts are structured, and also because of the draft.
Most all teams are above the cap, so the few teams that are under the cap will always seek out the "known" NBA experianced FA. They will never take a risk on a Euro player who is a FA.
Long term contracts keep teams over the cap and as such keep many deserving players out of the league.
The draft locks up 1 roster spot per teameach year for essentially 4 years. Many of these players don't fit into the 20% to 40% of players who would be successful anywhere. Many would fall into the 20% to 40% who are borderline NBA players. How many players in Europe should be in the "Best" league in the world, the NBA?
There are a number of players in Europe that I wonder how successful they would be in the NBA.
Sarunas Jasikevicius
David Anderson
Marcus Brown
Arvydas Macijauskas
Toby Bailey
Blake Stepp
Dejan Bodiroga
Looking at the Kings over the last 4 to 5 years, it is obvious who the guys are that should be starting in this league. CWebb, Vlade, Miller, Peja, Bibby. What of the others? Did Doug Christie fall into the ideal situation for himself, or would he have had the same level of success with most other teams? Bobby Jackson? Hedo? Jason Williams? Jon Barry? any others?
Of those who moved to or from the Kings, if they improved was it because they moved to the right situation or was it just the natural improvement as a player? Of those who regressed, as it because they went to a bad situation or was it because their skills deteriorated?
-
What about Ginoblli and Z? Weren't they both drafted in the past 10 years? That's 3 more All Star appearances for the fuzzy little foreigners.
-
I agree with dbods -- it's more like 60/40 -- not 80/20. And I will state that even the best players in the league will even be better under a system (mainly because role players will be better support because of that system) -- MJ is a great example, he would have still flourished but the Triangle offense made his teammates better which meant it was more difficult to double/triple team.
I'll go with 70/30 B)
So true that coaches can hinder or accentuate a players skills.
Look what Van Grunty is doing in Hou with Yao-Tmac etc.
Hou had it going on for a while this year, 17-6 stretch was tied for league best during that stretch. They cracked 100pts 1/2 the time during the stretch. Now i see Grunty has them back to 80-85 pts in 3 straight losses.
To the point of the post tho I'll go with 30% of NBA could play on any team.
The rest it absolutely makes a difference what "situation" they are put in on both O and D.
Hasn't everyone here played hoop with friends or good teamates in which their cooperation and teamwork made all the difference in how the game and specifically your game turned out?
-
What about Ginoblli and Z? Weren't they both drafted in the past 10 years? That's 3 more All Star appearances for the fuzzy little foreigners.
Ah yes JN, my mistake.
-
This is a fascinating topic, isn't it?
Ziggy, this issue could easily be broken down by position. Point guards, for instance, are always high in demand; even the mediocre ones. A good cross-over will get you at least on the end of the bench. Power forwards are also not getting into the NBA at all if they are not big enough, for one, or can at least do one of the following well: rebound, block shots, pass, shoot a mid-range jumper, play a decent low-post game. Being slow probably means no NBA for you, kid. I already talked about centers.
The swing positions are where you will find the extremes at both ends of this 80-20 split. The absolute best all-round atheletic players found in the NBA are SF/SG types - the guys you plan your defensive schemes around stopping. At the same time, you can find these "tweeners" all over the League with their fingernails dug deep into NBA benches, trying their damnest to hang on for just another five minutes of playing time somewhere.
-
and yet besides the "tweeners" you have clearly defined role players like Speedy Claxton going to GS who in turn pick up DFisher and NVE. :crazy: Granted they traded NVE but still.
A Jamison always has been one of the best SF IMO. Hands down. Yet he goes to Dallas who already has a SF in Dirk and AWalker and while AJ plays a lot, is 6th man of the year, he is still a 6th man. Now that he is back starting you see him putting up the same excellent #s he did in GState. I would have loved and still would love to snag AJam onto the Spurs. It aint gonna happen but he is my kind of forward.
Some of the rosters make no sense at all. This is where the player and his agent would do well to be very selectful in where they go or don't go. Speedy Claxton should have stayed put in SAS.
NBA careers can me made or broken depending on which teams and systems a player plays on. If not the extemes of "made" or "broken" then certainly altered.
Randoph spoke correctly when he talked of MJ getting into Tex Winters system. To an even greater extent look at what a system and coach like Phil Winters did for Steve Kerr. If Kerr gets stuck on Golden State do we even hear much about his career?
-
This is a fascinating topic, isn't it?
Ziggy, this issue could easily be broken down by position. Point guards, for instance, are always high in demand; even the mediocre ones. A good cross-over will get you at least on the end of the bench. Power forwards are also not getting into the NBA at all if they are not big enough, for one, or can at least do one of the following well: rebound, block shots, pass, shoot a mid-range jumper, play a decent low-post game. Being slow probably means no NBA for you, kid. I already talked about centers.
The swing positions are where you will find the extremes at both ends of this 80-20 split. The absolute best all-round atheletic players found in the NBA are SF/SG types - the guys you plan your defensive schemes around stopping. At the same time, you can find these "tweeners" all over the League with their fingernails dug deep into NBA benches, trying their damnest to hang on for just another five minutes of playing time somewhere.
Which position matters the most? (http://www.82games.com/comm31.htm)
Jomal, you are quite the sage. Here is an article from 82games.com that looks at the various positions, and it supports a lot of what you are talking about.
At 82games we track a number of stats on a "production by position" basis, both for teams (see Pacers positional numbers for example), and for individual players (see Tim Duncan's stats by playing position).
There can be complexities in evaluating which players on court in a game are playing which position at that moment, but by scaling the roster of a team from “most point guard†to “most center†you can organize a group into logical positional placement. For instance when the Kings have Bibby-Christie-Peeler-Stojakovic-Webber on the floor, Webber is acting as the center, Stojakovic is the power forward, whereas in a lineup of Bibby-Christie-Stojakovic-Webber-Miller, Webber is now at the four spot, and Stojakovic is playing the three.
Moreover, we track the stats of the opposing counterpart position, which enables us to build out all kinds of tables with information comparing the net production for each team and player.
One of the many research projects underway and continuing through the off-season will be to assess the correlation between various statistics and the wins accrued for the team in actual reality. While there are many stats we track for position production purposes, by turning to the ratings based on the excellent PER formulas developed by John Hollinger (and as detailed in his Pro Basketball Prospectus books), we get to a summary rating that tackles the heart of the matter.
1) Correlation of Team Positional Production and Wins
We'll first focus on just the team's actual player PER rating (ignoring the counterpart of the opposition), and have three views based on the 2002-03 season, the 2003-04 season, and the two seasons combined.
Position 02-03
Correlation 03-04
Correlation 2Yr
Correlation 95% CI
PG .53 .42 .49 .27 to .66
SG .21 -.17 .07 -.19 to .32
SF .19 .27 .23 -.03 to .46
PF .42 .38 .40 .16 to .60
C .28 .40 .33 .08 to .54
First off we are dealing with only 29 observations per year, so not a giant sample to work with. Not surprisingly then, the standard errors are such that using a 95% confidence interval, we cannot say with total conviction that Point Guard production has been more valuable than Shooting Guard play, since the "best case" SG is 0.32 correlation, while PG is 0.27 in the "worst case."
Still the correlation values from year to year are pretty consistent for PG and PF, and overall it comes in as PG-PF-C-SF-SG in order of importance. Now, before all the GM's rush out to trade their high priced Shooting Guards, perhaps what we are seeing is merely a reflection of the NBA currently and not a long term indication of true worth of positions. For instance, when Jordan was in his prime and ostensibly a shooting guard, it seems likely that the SG production would correlate somewhat more substantially with Wins! These days it is the Power Forwards and Point Guards getting the most notice -- Duncan, Garnett, Kidd and co are some of the stars of the immediate pro basketball era. However, if another crop of Jordans comes along who's to say that the SG's won't become the dominant "correlators."
2) Correlation of Opponent Positional Production and Wins
This time we'll look at the production allowed to opponents by position:
Position 02-03
Correlation 03-04
Correlation 2Yr
Correlation 95% CI
PG -.42 -.48 -.44 -.63 to -.21
SG -.54 -.65 -.58 -.73 to -.38
SF -.57 -.59 -.56 -.72 to -.36
PF -.40 -.38 -.39 -.59 to -.14
C -.37 -.52 -.44 -.63 to -.21
For the opposing production by position, the order of importance according to the correlation comes in as SG-SF-PG-C-PF, which is interesting to say the least. Whereas having a great shooting guard is downplayed, being able to defend the opposing two guard is significant!
(And no, this study was not funded by the agents of Bruce Bowen, Trent Hassell, et al.)
It's tight though among the positions for this look however, suggesting the ordering could easily change with a different sample of years.
3) Correlation of Net Positional Production and Wins
Finally, we'll run the numbers for the net production, or "PER Difference" to use the term being popularized in certain quarters.
Position 02-03
Correlation 03-04
Correlation 2Yr
Correlation 95% CI
PG .61 .60 .60 .41 to .74
SG .39 .36 .38 .13 to .58
SF .43 .62 .53 .31 to .69
PF .58 .48 .53 .32 to .70
C .38 .52 .45 .21 to .63
For the net production by position, it's PG-PF-SF-C-SG, but again with the wide standard deviations, the 95% CI does not allow for any conclusive stance on one position over another.
At the same time, we can infer from the data that for the past two years, the teams with high producing point guards and forwards have been faring better than those with juggernaut two guards or centers.
Perhaps the most relevant mention of this could be seen in the current Spurs-Lakers playoff series (with San Antonio up 2-0 at this time), where the Spurs have been fabulous in the PG battle (Parker running wild against Payton) and the PF spot (Duncan over Malone), while the Lakers haven't extracted wins from their edge at SG and C.
Anyway, the above tables have served as the warmup...we'll be back next week with the real test when we run regressions on the PER team stats for all positions at once!
-
Perhaps the most relevant mention of this could be seen in the current Spurs-Lakers playoff series (with San Antonio up 2-0 at this time), where the Spurs have been fabulous in the PG battle (Parker running wild against Payton) and the PF spot (Duncan over Malone), while the Lakers haven't extracted wins from their edge at SG and C.
Anyway, the above tables have served as the warmup...we'll be back next week with the real test when we run regressions on the PER team stats for all positions at once!
Will there also be a movie coming out on this?
Actually it is very interesting the who is on the floor together production stats.
Is that what this is talking about lol!
-
Figures, this IS science.
Naturally,math can be used to compare the various positions. What is most interesting about it, is that the position can likely vary over time, depending if dominant centers are currently playing in the NBA, or shooting guards.
It also backs up the supposition that you build your team's offense around the type of players you have, and if your superstar plays small forward, he gets the ball more. Shooting guards Jordan or McGrady will be their respective team's focal point, Iverson his, but guys like Nash or Kidd will always have a power forward or center who gets credit for his team winning more.
Interesting.
-
Ah, but what happens now that AI has Cwebb on his team. Will he still be the focal point, or wwill Cwebb become the dominant player?
I actually think AI won't be diminished by the persence of Webber, I think it will enhance people's perceptions of him. He'll still score a large percentage of the Sixers points, but he will also get more assists. Webber will take pressure of off Iverson, and spread it out to the other teamates. Igoudala and Korver will get more opportunities thanks to Webber's passing and the attention he demands.
This move could make Iverson the best point guard in the NBA. I expect him to move up to the top of the assists list now.
-
Ah, but what happens now that AI has Cwebb on his team. Will he still be the focal point, or wwill Cwebb become the dominant player?
I actually think AI won't be diminished by the persence of Webber, I think it will enhance people's perceptions of him. He'll still score a large percentage of the Sixers points, but he will also get more assists. Webber will take pressure of off Iverson, and spread it out to the other teamates. Igoudala and Korver will get more opportunities thanks to Webber's passing and the attention he demands.
This move could make Iverson the best point guard in the NBA. I expect him to move up to the top of the assists list now.
What if teams based who on the team will be the focal point strictly on salary? The more a player earns, the more he will have the ball in his hands. The Sixers would be force-feeding the ball into Webber three possessions to every two for Iverson then.
Now, if that were the case, it would surely be in the interests of teams to pay similar salaries out to players at each position to guarantee the ball gets passed around more.
-
Actually JoMal, that's the way it is. The reason most players get higher salaries is the result of their play. Not that a point guard worries about how much this guy or that guy gets, but how open is he, and how easy is it to get him the ball.
The players who work harder to get the ball, get it more, have more chances to shoot and score and get more money. If players don't shoot well enough, they don't get the ball as much and end up getting under utilized. No team want to keep passing the ball to player who isn't scoring.
Some players deserve based on their shooting percentage to shoot the ball more, but don't always get the opportunity. Andre Igoudala comes to mind for the Sixers. If he would shoot more the Sixers would shoot a higher percentage collectively. I wonder how many other players in the league deserve more shots and don't get them because of the way their teams play.