I saw a link to this on TrueHoop, about NBA Archetypes: http://upsideandmotor.com/20081217351/articles/december-2008/charting-out-nba-archetypes.html Basically, they break up NBA players in the a number of tiers, and within each tiers they have different categories. Also, a player might by classification find themselves on the 2nd or 3rd tier, say, but by sheer talent/greatness may still qualify as a "1st tier"-quality player. Kobe Bryant, who is by this above classifications a "Surreal Scorer" primarily and a "Rennaisance Man" secondarily would be an example of this. Because it might be tough to fit a player neatly into one specific category, for each player I'll give a secondary classification if necessary. Here's my attempt, using the above archetypes:
The hierarchy blows IMO. Rafer, for example, is a pass first point guard, but he certainly doesn't belong in the second tier, and the 5th tier classification isn't a fair one either. Yao is the very definition of a refined big man, yet you hesitate to put him in tier 1. And why is "interior defensive presence" a tier three classification? Unless you're willing to stick Desagana Diop, Mikki Moore and Adonal Foyle in there without batting an eyelid, perhaps. Why is "3 point shooting big" tier 5, other than due to a r****ded stereotype? I hate the Jazz as much as anyone but Mehmet Okur is certainly not a tier 5 player, and neither is Ilgauskas who also shoots 3s. How does Al Harrington get a higher ranking than either of these guys? Why does he get a special spot on level 4? I could go on and on...
i agree, you have to put yao on top of all rockets at this point. maybe it'll change later, but when you're the top scorer, rebounder, shot blocker, fg%, it's hard to argue otherwise.
Yeah, that hierarchy sucks. If you can't find a place for Kobe and Wade on the 1st tier, then I'm not going to play. I mean, Michael Jordan wouldn't be on the 1st tier, and neither would Larry Bird.
Maybe the whole idea is that you'd put Kobe, Jordan and Bird over in the Lebron circle, I guess. Still, it needs a slot for SG/Wing superstar on the 1st tier to go with PG and Big.
I do agree with your criticism regarding the tiers. The tier you fall under shouldn't just be what you do, but also how well you do it. That's not captured very well with their archetypes. They say that talent level can bump a player's tier up or down a couple levels, which makes me think that there's no strong connection between the archetypes and the tiers anyways. I'm more interested in how our players would fit in the various categories -- that is their functional role on the team -- without much regard for the tier in which they should belong. I don't consider Rafer a pass-first PG. He looks for his shot, and he's encouraged to do so by the coaches. I think veteran floor general captures his role a bit better. That and "chucker". As for Yao, I considered "refined big man". But based on their explanation, I'm not sure if Yao is qualified. Yao does certain things very, very well, but he is also routinely neutralized by fronting defenses.
The primary classification for Luther should be 'Do-nothing.' I don't actually see him as a chucker unless that means a mini-SG that can't slash or finish around the basket, i.e., 'only a shooter.' I don't think of a chucker as a 'shooter only' but rather a shooter (good or bad) that takes too many bad shots. If you want to be nice, you could give him a secondary classification of 'Three-point bomber' but he probably isn't good enough to play enough to deserve that label.
This is how they explain it in this link: [rquoter] First, a bit of explanation is in order. Each player probably won't fall neatly into one of these classifications, but I would say that most could claim one of these titles as their "primary" classification. Take Kobe, for example: I would classify Kobes as primary: Surreal scorer, secondary: Renaissance man. So what does that say about Kobe's placement on this type of hierarchy? It says that in terms of value based on classification alone, Kobe would be among the second tier of players. This brings about the point that as a general rule, sheer talent could push a player up one tier, or maybe even two.[/rquoter] I think they imagine each of the archetypes as a functional role each player can play on the team. If a player happens to be so good that he plays that role really, really well -- then that can bump up his tier. Also, a player like Jordan or Kobe could have two "tier 2" classifications -- surreal scorer and renaissance man. I guess we could say that if a player can make a claim to two tier 2 archetypes, then that adds to a tier 1 quality player.
This is how they define Refined Big Man in the link: * They're kind of tall * Frighteningly dominant * Leadership by nature, play, or attitude * Defensive prowess in the form of fundamental focus, unbridled athleticism, or getting down on all fours and barking That's Hakeem, Shaq, Duncan. Maybe KG (not really a "dominant" offensive player, but he can dominate a game overall). I don't think that's Yao. But, it's debatable. I said in my classification that's "skilled but flawed" and a "defensive presence". I guess that could add up to refined big man.
The tiers really do blow...using this, one could argue that Steve Blake (pass-first point guard)>Gerald Wallace/Ray Allen/Ron Artest etc. etc.
I think that's a problem with the names; a little too general. They probably had in mind specific types of players or set of skills with each archetype, but the labels aren't very descriptive.
I think Scalabrine & Novak are the ones intended for that category. I'd put Okur under offensive-minded pivot.
Kind of Tall = Yao Frighteningly dominant = Yao Leadership by nature, play, or attitude = Yao * Defensive prowess in the form of fundamental focus, unbridled athleticism, or getting down on all fours and barking = Not so much, but he does have some of it.
i'd put duncan instead of kg for the title of refined big man. kg is overrated at this point of his career. kendrick perkins is a better post defender than kg. kg didn't and couldn't guard millsap, so perkins did it. And I'd rather take a humble leader like duncan than an overrated, arrogant kg. On a side note: since when did "crawling on all fours" become a good thing?
In my book, Chuck Hayes is definitely an interior defensive presence, Yao is certainly a refined big man, and Steve Francis is a do nothing.
