Pardon me as I create a thread that has nothing to do with Dwight Howard or Jeremy Lin. But I had a question I was kicking around in my head. Would you rather a one-dimensional player who's exceptional at that one dimension or an all around player who is good at multiple facets of the game. Here are examples: PG averaging 15 assists per game but shoots 20% from the field SG who averages 30 PPG but doesn't play a lick of defense SF who is a great defender PF who is a rebounding machine C who is a shot-blocking beast vs PG averaging 10 and 8 SG averaging 18PPG 4 APG and 2 SPG SF averaging 10/8/4 PF averaging 15/9 C averaging 12/10 and 2 BPG
It would depend on the contribution from the other team guys. If Asik dominates on defense and the team has no problem scoring then I'd want Asik. If Martin averages 30 but plays no D on a team with an overall weak defense, you're gong to lose.
OK. Bad examples but you get the point. I can't edit the post to reduce the "average" frontcourt numbers.
One-dimensional will be one-dimensional. Easy to solve. I'll go with the average team with players that keep you guessing who will go off.
Good player, but hardly a beast unless that's a bench player. a beast is a player that would have something along the lines of 12-14 ppg, but is rebounding like over 14 -16 rpg.
We're talking about the player not the team. If the one-dimensional players are exceptional, you're not solving them. You're not stopping Rodman or Ben Wallace from getting rebounds. You're not stopping Carmelo from scoring. Dikembe is getting his blocks.
I think it depends on the position. PG- I would prefer them dishing out dimes to awesome scoring SG- I would prefer them scoring lights out over them being "all around" SF- I need this guy to be a utility guy, do it all type of guy. PF- Great Rebounds over decent at everything else C- Shot Blocking beast over utility I think this is an awesome question btw (seriously) I also think that most people would rather have a team full of one choice or the other if you mix them, then you get a team that won't gel very well. The 2 different looks would be something like Great at 1 thing vs. Good at more than 1 thing PG - Nash (without the shot) SG - Jordan (without the defense) SF - Iggy PF - Rodman C - Dikembe Good at more than 1 thing PG - Kyle Lowry SG - Jason Richardson SF - Tayshaun Prince PF - Paul Millsap C - Gortat I know these players can be changed out with countless others, but the overall point I'm trying to make is that if EVERYONE in your lineup complements each other with their skillset then the team will just mesh better than if their skills don't. Not to mention players who are jack of all trades yet masters of none tend to be role players, yet guys who are elite in at least 1 skill set at least have the ability to be elite.
Or if we want to do all rockets how about: PG - John Lucas SG - Calvin Murphy SF - Battier PF - Otis Thorpe C - Dikembe vs. PG - Lowry SG - Mad Max SF - Robert Horry PF - Carl Landry C - Chuck Hayes
It's harder creating a real world example for the one dimensional team, but the all around average team, no problem. I don't consider the second group to be average, necessarily, but your premise is interesting I know where you are going with it. Can a team full of above-average (not necessarily great or upper echelon) be better than a group of one skill studs. A better word for one-dimensional maybe such a player is really only good or above average in one or two categories, instead of several areas. Active team (all-around players, above average, but not necessarily an all-star) PG: Kyle Lowry SG: OJ Mayo SF: Nicolas Batum PF: Paul Milsap C: Roy Hibbert (controversial pick, because personally don't think he's an all-star caliber player, even for a modern center, though he's not bad and he fits your criteria.) Active team (perceived one-dimensional-skill studs, I'll try this as best as possible) PG: Jose Calderon (Problem is that he's a really good shooter, though he doesn't score very much. He's mostly an excellent distributor) SG: Kevin Martin (Great scorer, not much else) SF: Carmelo Anthony (Great scorer, not much else) PF: Kris Humphries (Good rebounder, defense is average, and his scoring is more clean up points than anything else) C: Deandre Jordan (Outstanding shotblocker, little else) I tried my best...
Your best players need to be great at one or more things and at least average in everything else. So, if you're picking between the one-trick pony and the average joe, you're talking about which guy you want to round out your rotation. In which case, it depends on what else you've got on your roster. But, I'm erring toward the specialist.
Exactly, the specialist will at least be elite in something....yet the other guy is basically patrick patterson....(no offense POF's)
When I put the list together I wasn't necessarily putting a team together just giving examples for each position. If we did teams, the "one-dimensional" team just looks like bad team chemistry from the start and they would be hard to replace if they get injured. If they all know their roles and don't have ego problems then it might work. A real-life example is the Pistons with Prince (defense), Ben Wallace (rebounds), and Hamilton (shooting). Wallace was probably the best of the bunch at what he did; the others might not have been "exceptional" at what they did. I would imagine the best team would have a couple one-dimensional players and a couple all-around players.
If u don't have a superstar player (someone who's great at multiple things) then the answer should always be the average all around player, but mostly because of economics. The average all around guys (think Lowry) are the cheap morey type finds that contribute just as much, if not more, to winning as the 1D scorers (think Martin, $12M+).
5 One Dimensional Players vs 5 average players Who wins? I think the One Dimensional Players Rocket River
This. One dimensionals are easy to build around, however the problem is that most one-dimensional players tend aren't exceptional at what they do. Melo for example, is a one-dimensional scorer, but because he lacks a legit 3 pt shot and doesn't really go strong to basket I don't consider him an elite scorer. Kwame Brown is another example, he's a one dimensional player but he's only above average defensively. If you really have an elite one dimensional player, then its just a matter of surrounding him with better players who can compensate for his weaknesses.
