I'm not sure if you hate Melo, or if you hate the knicks or what, but Carmelo is arguably the best pure scorer in the NBA (not the best player, but best scorer) him and Kobe shoot roughly the same from 3pt land (33% & 34%) and as good as LeBron he still at times has trouble handling Carmelo's strength. But getting back on topic, if all your "elite" one-dimensional starters have the abilities the OP listed then there's no way they wouldn't be the best choice. If you want to see what a team full of utility players can do in the NBA, see Houston Rockets 2009-2012
Just find a bunch of players making max MLE money and average those numbers out. Max MLE is the mean salary.
PG- All-Around (12 ppg, 6 apg) SG- One-Dimensional Scorer (25 ppg) SF- All-Around (16 ppg, 5 rpg, 3 apg) PF- One-Dimensional Rebounder (6 ppg, 12 rpg) C- One-Dimensional Defender (8 ppg, 10 rpg, 3 bpg) In order of position from best player to worst... SG, PG, SF, C, PF Fill in the blanks of players with those averages.
not even a question. elite specialist are hall of famers, generalists never make the all star team. At the center and PF positions, entire teams can be built around Mutombo or Rodman or Ben Wallace. at the SF and SG positions, Reggie Miller, Carmelo Anthony, Alex English, Pistol Pete, etc... the PG position is different because it's tough to be an elite passer if you can't score. Stockton, Mark Jackson.
Unless, generalist are good to great in several different areas...think Pippen, Havlicek, and even ... Lebron (although he's an elite scorer, he's a generalist with many elite skills - passing, rebounding, and defense).
Elite means the best in the league, look at assists leaders in NBA and they all can score with the best of them
How is one of the best defenders of all time a generalist? someone that is elite at several categories is not a generalist, they are just elite. Generalist is someone who is above average in lots of things.
basically. i voted for one-dimensional, but it only applies if the numbers are more corresponding to the question.
vs. "your perception of Jeremy Lamb", probably. Lamb could be Kevin Martin. Or average at everything. Or he could be a star and elite at several things.
I might be off here but I think a good example might be Asik vs Kaman. Asik being the one-dimensional player and Kaman being the all around player. Or Ray Allen (in his prime) vs Dwayne Wade (in his prime). Though Allen showed some stretches where he played good defence. Or Gerald Wallace vs Battier
Generalist and specialists are two comparisons. You can be an elite player as a generalist or as a specialist. There are generalist with elite skills, while there are specialist with a particular elite skill. In general, it typically refers to occupational skills: Generalist/specialist: refer to a type of skill sets. General Practitioner(general) vs. surgeon (specialized). Being elite or mediocre is not mutually exclusive to any particular position. You have mediocre surgeons versus excellent surgeons in specialized field. Moreover, a general practitioner is going to have wide range knowledge and skills towards many different things and conditions. One practitioner could have a broad knowledge of many things and has average to below average skills at most things, while another practitioner could have a broad knowledge of many things and could also have certain specialized skills which you could phrase as elite. Elite/Very good/Average/Mediocre/: refers to a quality of something. Elite has an abstract connotation in a sense, because what are you referring to. What are you elite at? What type of skill set do you have? It's not imp ossible to have superstar generalists, especially when a player is good at alot of different things. Being a superstar and a generalist are again not mutually exclusive. It can apply to any field. There are generalist lawyers and specialized lawyers, why can't their be a such thing as an elite generalist lawyer versus a mediocre generalist lawyers, same thing with specialized lawyers. If you say elite specialist, such a person or player is good to great at certain things, like Reggie Miller (defender) or Bruce Bowen (defender). You could say elite (specialized) scorers are people, like Carmelo Anthony, Vince Carter, or Alex English, often because they aren't great at anything else. Yet, you can have elite scorers who do have a general set of good skills. You can be a generalist at something, yet have one or two elite skills in one phase with several average to mediocre skills in other phases. Now move over to Lebron James: outstanding scorer (not as adept as Durant, Kobe, and Melo), mediocre shooter, average free throw shooter, great passer and distributor, good to great rebounder, poor 3 point shooter, and excellent defender. Wider range of skills and ability with certain exceptional skills make him an elite player. If LeBron wasn't a generalist, he'd just be another great scorer who doesn't necessarily have a wide range of skills. The way his game is made, James could succeed as a role player or even a superstar, because his good to great at alot of different things. Again, I could use Scottie Pippen, John Havlicek for Hall of Famers, while you could use Shawn Marion, Andre Iguodala, Fat Lever, Rasheed Wallace, Chauncey Billups, Pau Gasol, Chris Bosh, Lamar Odom, Kyle Lowry, and etc. In basketball terms, I see a generalists as someone who can score or shoot almost, as well as they can pass, play defense, or rebound. Someone who can possibly guard more positions. You cannot say all generalist are role players, because all role players are not generalist, just as not all specialist are necessarily superstars or role players. As funny as this sounds, you don't find alot of generalists in basketball and sometimes football. There are alot more one-dimensional players or players who do a few things well than most things well. Though, in sports it is kind of confusing, because people do sort of think a superstar can do alot of different things well or at an elite level (which is not always true). http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/generalist http://www.thefreedictionary.com/generalist http://www.sitepoint.com/specialist-vs-generalist-who-wins/
Unlike football and baseball that switch between defence and offence by the offical call. Basketball players have to running back and forth between defence and offence without timeout. So I think to have average players are better than one dimensional players. Rockets team has a lot of one-dimensional players these years, and tend to be on offence side. So called moneyball under rated players. But when the game is on the line and both team tighten up the defence. When you can't score easiy, and can't stop other team score, then you will loose the game on 4th quarter. However, for the center and power forwad position, it might be better have one offence specialist and one denfence specialist, like Dirk/Chandler, than two average players. Like a spear and a shield. So I am interest to see how Asik and Montie work together.
