I'll give you a couple of comps then. If we're still doing the Pistons comp, then Jabari can be Prince. The comp many had coming out of college was a tall Klay. Now Klay is obviously more than a role player because he is arguably the 2nd best 3pt shooter in NBA history during his prime. But if Jabari can be 80% the value of Klay as a shooter, then he's an elite role player.
If this is your definition of "role player," then so be it. But I'll be honest -- it sounds idiotic to me. Basically, under this definition, everyone who is not a "primary scorer" is a "role player." Yeah, I can't get on board with that. The history of the league simply doesn't support it. And that's my overarching point. Just because a player isn't a primary scorer doesn't mean they are a "role player." To me, this is the hierarchy on good teams: Core 3 - 4 players Role players who complement those 3 - 4 players Bench players I feel like modern fans are creating a weird separation whereby if a player isn't a #1 scoring option, they are a "role player." That, to me, is simple minded to a fault.
I'm litigator who writes novels as a hobby. But hey, your little quips are certainly persuasive. Far more than what I wrote.
I don't think it's got anything to do with his statline. It's got to do with skillset. A roleplayer is a guy with a limited skillset. If your team tells you to stop dribbling, stop trying to post up, stop trying to isolate, we don't need you to playmake, we don't need you to be a good passer...that's a roleplayer. Again, it's how much they limit your role. Really great players (not roleplayers) are allowed to do a wide variety of things. If your team's expectation of you is very limited, and they limit you to a specific "role", thats a roleplayer. So my answer to your question is both yes and no, he could possibly average 18/8 and still be a roleplayer. For him to be more than a roleplayer that would mean the team regularly asks him and trusts him to do a wide variety of things.
Everyone has a "limited skillset." There is no perfect player. So, again, I disagree -- a player averages 18/8 is not a "role player." A top 3 - 4 player on a very good team is not a "role player."
Listen, if you can't present a decent counter to what I wrote, then that's okay. I just win. I win a lot.
Yeah I think players can be all-star players without being a primary scorer. Ben Wallace comes to mind, the man was the face of a championship team and on video game covers and stuff...couldn't score a lick, but you'd see him have crazy rebound and block games. Think the only player in history that has more blocks than personal fouls which is crazy when you think about it. Yeah people keep saying he needs to be able to dribble but Dirk couldn't. Dude just shot over guys. One of Bari's go to moves in college was doing just that, shooting over guys. When you are his height you can shoot over most guys in front of you, if he brings that back to the NBA he becomes a lot harder to stop.
I can try to explain it better then. Yeah, of course everyone has a limited skillset. And obviously there isn't a very clear, well defined definition here, it's not like you can draw a line in the sand. But take a look at someone who is a star, they have a wide variety of skills. There are tons of things they are "allowed" to do on the court if they feel it's the right move. They have the freedom to do almost anything they want if there's a good justification for it, like if Jokic decides to post up, or shoot a 3, or dribble drive, or make a behind the back pass, or whatever, he is "allowed" to do that. And then to compare that to someone like Clint Capela (the most obvious example of a roleplayer I can think of), like, Capela couldn't say "I thought that was a good spot for me to shoot a 3." No man, you don't shoot 3s ever, that's not your role. Or if you thought it was a good time to post up, no, you don't get to post up. You don't get to dribble either, if you ever think it's time for you to dribble, it's not, just pass the ball back out. Does that make sense? A role player is a player who is highly limited in their role, they are only asked to do very specific things, and they are heavily discouraged from doing most things outside of their very specific skillset. That's what makes a roleplayer. Like tonight Jabari had a very very good game, but I think he played like a rolelplayer. His role was very specific, just make open shots, fight for offensive/defensive rebounds, and play great defense. And he did that exceptionally well. Every single shot he made was assisted. This was a perfect example of the best a roleplayer could possibly play.
Thank you for summarizing my points so well. Let's be clear, because people are skirting around the true issue. Namely, posters say Bari's ceiling is a "role player" because, at the moment, he's not a fantastic creator. Again, this is shortsighted and foolish because (1) it presupposes that Bari can't get better at shot creation; and (2) the mere fact that a player isn't the "primary scoring" or "primary shot creator" does not, by extension, mean said player is a "role player." That absolute lunacy.
No, it doesn't make sense, because you are focusing on a single side of the ball. And I don't agree at all that a "role player" is simply a player who isn't the primary option on offensive play. Again, shot creation is not the singular attribute that should define the difference between a "role player" and a non-role player. Here's who I believe a true "role players." Alex Caruso. Jamal Crawford. Duncan Robinson. Guys who provide a specific niche that complement the core 3 - 4 players' strengths and weaknesses. Basically the 5th - 7th guys rotational guys on a very good team. You will never convince me that a top 3 - 4 player on a very good team is a "role player."
Can’t let the litigator win on default. How is it that the definition excludes anyone that isn’t a primary scorer? Chris Paul isn’t excluded from the definition. Clippers Harden isn’t. Rockets FVV isn’t. Alpi, Sabonis, Holmgren, and Franz aren’t. These guys create offense for others and themselves. If you’re a primary scorer, yeah you’re very likely to fall outside the definition. But you’ve misunderstood the definition to mean the converse? What does “core” even mean? Would be helpful if you could define that before arbitrarily assigning numbers to what a “good team’s” “core” looks like. There will be some offensive role players that are defensive hubs, think Rudy Gobert, so it may not be fair to characterize them as role players. But getting back to Jabari, who cannot create offense for others and still hasn’t shown a real ability to create for himself, especially off the dribble. He’s going to be excellent as a complementary offensive player—finishing plays with as a spot up 3pt shooter, getting offensive rebounds, and occasionally taking a few dribbles to get open and hit a middy—who holds his own defensively. And that’s great.
Alright fair enough. Sounds like we just have different definitions. For me the 3rd best player on a great team may or may not be a roleplayer, but he definitely can be. Maybe you don't agree with my definition, but I thought it made sense. Tried my best to explain it.
None of these 3 are good primary creators. Wemby just has the green light to chuck whenever he feels like it vs Chet/Jabari.
As I said before, anyone who discounts the defensive side of the game when analyzing what defines a "role player" shows me their true view of the game. You can believe offensive creation should be the end-all be-all of role player v. non-role player. All I can say is I disagree. A team's "core" should not be difficult to define. Every good team has 2 - 4 players that they have developed around. These specific "core" players, hopefully, have attributes that complement each other. For example, if you have a terrific center who can serve as an offensive "hub," you may want a guy like Bari who can space offball and provide switchable defense, as well as a guy like Amen who can slash and provide incredible perimeter defense. So, let's say that's your core -- you hope to surround those guys with true "role players." 3 point specialists. A backup big who can rim protect. A bench offensive "spark." Those are your "role players," not the 3 players you've built around.
Chet and Wemby are both far better creators than Jabari but they have something else as well. It brings up a good point, can a non creator ever be more than a role player? The answer is yes, but he would need to be an elite level defender, an anchor the defense is built around. I wanted Paolo in the draft, but as a cope after selecting Jabari I said that if he could be a dpoy caliber defender then he could still be a star despite his limited offensive ability. Unfortunately that never materialized. He is a solid defender who has room to improve, but you can tell if someone is an elite defender from day 1: Amen, Mobley etc. Jabari was actually a horrible defender his rookie year, but has improved since then. He’s trending to become a solid defender + good shooter. If it becomes very good defender + great shooter then that’s an elite role player.
