The definition of a max-level player has been diluted over the years by teams that are willing to pay such ridiculous sums to player such as Rashard Lewis, Joe Johnson, etc. While these players were/are stars in their own right, they aren't exactly on the same playing field as say a player like Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Kevin Durant, Derrick Rose, etc. In the past, a player that given a max contract was typically a franchise cornerstone that was not only a great player, but also crowd favorite and a stud from a business standpoint. However, over the years, due to the fact that superstar level players have been gravitating towards larger markets and brighter lights, smaller markets have been forced to pay a premium on players that are a shade below the elite superstars of the league and thus diluting the "max-level" player tag. In conclusion, a player is worth as much as the franchise is willing to pay them. To a team like the Heat, Harden might not be a "max-level" talent, but for a franchise like the Rockets, Harden IS a "max-level" player.
I watched Blazers' games on a regular basis during Roy's entire career and he was the best closer in the NBA for a couple of years, but your last sentence is a severe exaggeration. 24 points on 12 PnRs might be a first in NBA history. It isn't a matter of specific skillset or athleticism (by itself) at all, it's about a combination of skills, intelligence, athleticism and the ability to gauge and read what's going on. Harden's combination of these is incredible and just about equals Roy. Leadership and personality are big difference. It only took Roy about half a season to dominate the Blazers lockerroom even with jerky veterans like Z-Bo and Darius Miles on the team. If you ask me, Sarge wouldn't have been so successful in Portland if Roy hadn't become a buffer between him and the players. IMO, Roy's absence is why the lockerroom got out of hand this year leading to McMillan's ouster. Harden isn't programmed that way at all and has no problem letting KD, WB and Perk handle those duties.
The definition of a max-level player has been diluted over the years by teams that are willing to pay such ridiculous sums to player such as Rashard Lewis, Joe Johnson, etc. While these players were/are stars in their own right, they aren't exactly on the same playing field as say a player like Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Kevin Durant, Derrick Rose, etc. In the past, a player that given a max contract was typically a franchise cornerstone that was not only a great player, but also crowd favorite and a stud from a business standpoint. However, over the years, due to the fact that superstar level players have been gravitating towards larger markets and brighter lights, smaller markets have been forced to pay a premium on players that are a shade below the elite superstars of the league and thus diluting the "max-level" player tag. In conclusion, a player is worth as much as the franchise is willing to pay them. To a team like the Heat, Harden might not be a "max-level" talent, but for a franchise like the Rockets, Harden IS a "max-level" player.
I don't care how unselfish or selfless a player is. I have a problem with a player that's "cool" with coming off the bench especially at this stage of his career. I don't care about the fact that he's finishing games or helping his team win. There's something wrong with that picture. If he were seasoned veteran like Jason Terry or Lamar Odom I'd be okay with it. But to me a player like that shows that he's never going to be THE MAN and he's cool with playing the role he's in. Which is 2nd or 3rd fiddle hence this whole programming thing you're referring to. Harden isn't programmed to be a superstar although he may have the skill set and tools.
I wouldn't go as far as to say James Harden is on Brandon Roy's level, but he does possess some of the same skills that Roy possessed. He is a very efficient scorer, but what sets him apart from the rest of players in the league today is the fact that he is able to adapt to what the defense gives him and acts accordingly. In other words, he has excellent feel for the game and his greatest strength is his ability to create to create for others. With that being said, I'm not entirely convinced that Harden prefers to come off the bench. For the sake of team chemistry and being "politically correct", I believe Harden made some comments about how he didn't have any issue with coming off the bench. That attribute about Harden, is something that fans and other players have to admire as he does place team first above himself. Harden is a smart player, I would assume that he would know what to say in those circumstances and he knows that so long as he pays his dues, his time will come.
I think you are being narrow-minded because Harden doesn't fit any of your pre-determined molds. Maybe he's seen Manu wasn't diminished at all when Pop called him into his office that fateful day and is more mature than other players his age. One thing I've learned from watching the NBA for nearly 40 years is both the game and players change and evolve over time. Time will tell on Harden. He's only 22 and is finishing his 3rd season. He's not KD, LeBron, etc and may never be. We'll have fun watching.
Pretty much. Part of being great is not only the skillset, but the mindset. Imposing your will on the game at critical moments and just through every game. I mean as a player, is harden any better than. Ellis? Do you see harden dropping 25-27 ppg in a season? Can he be the best player on a team? Roy was the best on his team and he had lamarcus aldridge.
When it comes to imposing his will on games, Harden has done so on many occasions, this season and last season. One of the problems is his coach, Scott Brooks, has insisted on going away from Harden late in games to feed KD & WB. Game 4 was one of the precious few times he stayed with him. If you don't understand Harden is better than Monta Ellis, there is no use discussing this further. 30/30 GMs would take him over Ellis. Promise. There are a lot of max players that don't average 25-27 ppg. In fact, KD won the NBA scoring titles at 27-28 ppg the last two seasons. Harden isn't Brandon Roy.
Harden has insane intangibles( as rated by nbadraft.net) thats probably why he doesnt have a problem coming off the bench Harden is a humble superstar Check out his profile http://www.nbadraft.net/players/james-harden
found this James Harden Strengths: Crafty player with great vision and offensive skills … For a player entering college his skills are advanced. Smooth. Can shoot, handle and pass … Elevates his teammates with great vision and unselfish play … Clutch player. A leader, who has the ability to will his team to victory. Similar to Manu Ginobili, he is a tremendous team player who would rather win and score 10 than lose and score 40 … Very cerebral. Does an excellent job of breaking down opponents and taking what the defense gives him … Can stroke it from outside as well as get by his man and take it to the rim … Has worked extremely hard over the summer to gain strength and muscle mass …
A healthy Manu, playing 32+ mpg, as a starter, is absolutely a max player. Both do enough of the other stuff to be right up there with other max players. So the issue comes down to are they go to scorers and clutch players. Consider neither has ever had the opportunity to take the number of shots required to be thought of as that obvious max guy... through no fault of their own. But Harden hasn't even had the opportunity to shoot as much as Manu, even. Harden's never taken more than 12 shots a game per 36 minutes, a numebr Manu's eclipsed every year of his career except his rookie year. The only worthy question one would have to ask themselves about Harden is can he take on that extra burden. And with some players the answer is no, or uncertain. But with Harden you got to feel really confident he can. Look at his college career. Look at his efficiency. As I noted he might lose some efficiency as his volume goes up and he is more of the opposing defense focus. But he can lose some efficiency and still be very good.
Very good points from both sides. Interesting debate to say the least. Lucky for us we get to see what happens. It will be fun to bump this thread in 5 years.
It's actually the other way around. The max-level decreased the price "franchise cornerstone" can get. Do you remember the kind of contracts Shaq, KG and Jordan were getting before the last lockout? $30MM per, which is what you pay for a franchise cornerstone. $15 MM per, that's Latrell Sprewell money. Just because Lebron is getting Latrell Sprewell money doesn't mean Joe Johnson doesn't deserve Latrell Sprewell money. Lebron deserve Jordan money, but the max salary cap kept guys that can single handily change a franchise from making their market value. Market value for Joe Johnson should be the max contract. Market value for Lebron is 2x Max contract.
http://hoopshype.com/columns/tolnick/why-not-points-per-shot In the ongoing quest to deliver meaningful sports statistics to information-hungry fans, basketball continues to lag behind baseball. In the everyday baseball box score, we now see an assortment of offensive efficiency and potency numbers. Batting Average has been with us for ages, but more recently a new set of offensive efficiency statistics have come into vogue, including, (1) On-Base Percentage (“OBP”: percentage of plate appearances that result in the player getting on base), (2) Slugging Percentage (“SLG”: number of bases achieved per at bat), and (3) On-Base Plus Slugging Percentage (“OPS”: the sum of OBP and SLG). These numbers paint a broader picture of a player’s offensive impact. After all, a player can get on base without getting a hit, and not all hits are created equal. In basketball, far too much value is afforded to the age-old Total Points and Points Per Game (PPG) statistics. Of course points are critical to winning a basketball game (but no more critical than preventing one’s opponent from scoring!), but nearly every NBA player, given enough shots, can score above average or even “impressive” point totals. An underappreciated statistic that I’d like to see discussed more frequently is one that can be easily deduced from every box score: Points Per Shot (PPS). This statistic measures the number of points a player scores per field goal attempt ((Total Points)/(Field Goal Attempts)). This statistic would favor players who were efficient shooters from all parts of the floor where they take shots, even if they don’t take that many total shots. It would also favor players who worked hard to get to the free throw line and then converted there, as points are earned without having utilized an official field goal attempt. PPS would not favor the 2001-02 Allen Iverson, who posted 31.4 ppg on 40 field goal shooting and under 30 percent from beyond the arc; despite his All-Star accolades, his PPS was a meager 1.13. To put this statistic into action, compare the following scoring stats of Player A and Player B: FG-FGA 3FG-3FGA FT-FA Points PPS Player A 12-27 2-6 6-8 30 1.11 Player B 5-9 1-2 9-10 20 2.22 So did Player A or Player B have the better game? In this example, Player A had a 30-point game and outscored Player B by 10 points. While most would acknowledge that Player B had a good game, many would look at Player A’s 30 points and say that he was the better player. Yet, on 1/3 as many shots as Player A, Player B scored 2/3 as many points. Thus, Player B’s efficiency was 100 percent greater than that of Player A. While the PPS stat isn’t available in your everyday box score, you can find it on ESPN.com. Of course, big men who play in the paint are likely to average higher PPS than guards who play away from the basket (just as their field goal percentages are typically higher). In the case of the 2011-12 regular season, six of the top seven PPS players were forwards and centers, each of whom is listed at 6-foot-8 or taller. James Harden, who has been recognized as the league’s best Sixth Man, is the lone guard in the Top 7, and at 6-foot-5, he ranks No. 2 in PPS, trailing only Tyson Chandler. In fact, if you were to go back for as far as ESPN keeps PPS data (1999-2000), Harden has the best single-season PPS of any NBA guard during the 13-year span, and Chandler’s 1.97 PPS is the best overall PPS in at least the last 13 years. To put Harden’s feat of 1.66 PPS as a guard into even more perspective, neither Michael Jordan nor Steve Nash nor Ray Allen ever broke the 1.5 PPS mark. And while dead-eye assassin Reggie Miller has broken 1.5 several times, he’s never cracked the 1.6 PPS mark. Player Position Height Age PPS Tyson Chandler C 7’1” 29 1.97 James Harden G 6’5” 22 1.66 Dwight Howard C 6’11” 26 1.54 LeBron James SF 6’8” 27 1.44 Nikola Pekovic C 6’11” 26 1.43 Kevin Durant SF 6’9” 23 1.43 Andrew Bynum C 7’0” 24 1.41 TOP 7 PPS PLAYERS, BY HEIGHT, POSITION, AND AGE; 2011-12 REGULAR SEASON Until there is a column in the box score devoted to PPS, its importance will be woefully underappreciated. And until players are stigmatized and penalized for below-average PPS, many who follow the NBA will inappropriately value NBA player contributions.
If PPS is an offensive stat and puts Tyson Chandler at the top, it's worthless. A player who shoots 4/5 from the floor with no FTs being counted equal to another player who shoots 4/5 and is 0/10 from the FT line is crazy.
First, only Jordan was getting $30 mill+ plus a year, but I do understand what you are saying. The reason why those guys were even getting those astronomical amounts was simply due to the fact that they had already been in the league for so long. With the new regulations, players won't be able to get to those sums ($20 mill+) as quickly as they did before. The new bargaining agreement suppresses the amount a player can make over a period of time as compared to how it was before. A player like Durant or Rose, will be seeing those type of figures on their NEXT max contracts. What I was trying to get at was that you only saw the elite players get such astronomical sums for contracts back in the day where teams would give the maximum amount allotted to a player as stipulated by the league. Nowadays, it is more common to see players that aren't exactly top-shelf talent get extended to the maximum as stipulated by the league. What I do like about the stipulations is that it does in a way separate the top-tier stars from the secondary stars by giving high achieving stars an extra bump (30% as opposed to 25%). I totally agree with you on the example you stated above about how players like Joe Johnson deserve Latrell Sprewell-type money, but the point I was trying to make is that these figures are being thrown around more casually these days then they were back in the day. Back then, only the best of the best were getting the astronomical amounts, but nowadays depending on how desperate a team is, they will go out and pay a player more than he should be getting paid, deeming him a "max-level" type player. Back in the day, "max-level player" was synonymous with franchise cornerstone, nowadays, "max-level player" can be second-tier stars like Joe Johnson, Rudy Gay, Danny Granger, etc.
