Quote:
Originally Posted by xxThe_Lebowskixx
the reason why these role players have more effective stats, higher fg% and ts% is because they take less shots and only take higher perentage shots BECAUSE THEY AREN'T GOOD ENOUGH. Do you think your 'specialist' would have such pretty stats if he was forced into the bulk scoring "chucker" role?
there are a handful of pure scorers (20ppg/10+ years) inexcusabley left in the draft. these guys would make much better role players for your team than actual role players.
drafting rondo here was ridiculously bad.
This really depends on your definition of "good." Do you mean guys who score a ton of points even though they are shooting a lower average than the rest of their team? My definition of a "good" player is a little different.
Look, building a successful basketball team is more about fit than putting the best players on the court. In spite of what some will say, there are very very few players who are do it all guys at their respective positions. Guys like Jordan, Duncan, and Bird are such players who were at or near the very best with regards to all aspects of playing great ball. I'd break them down like so:
Sexy, phat contract characteristics
volume scoring
efficiency scoring
inside scoring
jump-shooting
rebounding
playmaking
1v1 defense
Ugly characteristics that make up Basketball IQ
offensive mismatch recognition
off-ball movement (setting screens, using screens, creating space, etc...)
team defense
leadership
Intangibles
health
likability
off the court demeanor
The success of your team is going to depend on how well you've got these bases covered. Like it or not, most players will have deficiencies in several of these categories at their respective positions. I think fans tend to put too much stock into the very first category, whilst treating the others as less essential. That's a mistake because, if anything, volume scoring is the most abundant and perhaps the easiest trait to pick up in this draft. Come on, we act as if guys like Battier or Rodman couldn't double their scoring if they wanted to. The truth is they easily could, but it'd be at the expense of their efficiency, team efficiency, team chemistry, and ultimately their team's bottom line. More importantly, that's the one attribute that doesn't create problems if you aren't so great at it. Shane Battier pretty much does it all except score in bulk, but he's hardly a negative on offense. In fact, his three point shooting makes him extremely valuable. Aside from his ability to score at a high level of efficiency, he creates space on the floor by forcing a defender to stay close, which makes it easier for his teammates to put themselves in higher percentage situations.
Many of these scorers that have not been taken, as well as some that have, are great at volume scoring but pretty much suck at everything else. This makes them zero sum players, or at times less than that. These so-called role-players are generally rank very highly in everything except the first trait, which I've already said abundantly available.
What's more, these high volume/low efficiency guys are less valuable in a format like this than they are in real life. Most real life teams have only a couple of guys who can score efficiently, so their offense has to come from
somewhere, and often times it'll be from a bulk scorer because he's simply going to do it better than his counterparts. In a league such as this where you've got a much larger pool of players to cull from, that becomes less of a necessity because you are going to have better players around you.
All this, and we haven't even scratched the surface when it comes to managing this many egos for an 82 game season. That alone would be enough to make me want to limit the amount of so-called "stars" on my squad. You only have to think back to the last few Team USAs and the 2003-4 Lakers to see how well that worked out.
Last edited by Seadood228; 06-07-2008 at 11:31 AM.