I would actually classify luther as Do Nothing for primary and Pure Shooter for Secondary. his inability to do anything besides shoot open 3's is astounding and is the biggest part of his game (or lack thereof), but when it comes to 3's, he's a 39% career shooter, which i would put up in the "pure" category. chucker would imply he shoots too much and takes bad shots but he basically just takes his occasional open opportunities. and yeah, by their definition of refined big man, yao doesn't qualify. it's basically shaq or hakeem as durvasa said, and that's not yao.
I don't know if i'd call Rafer, Head, and Wafer "chuckers." They usually shoot when they're open. When I hear 'chucker' I think people like Antoine Walker or Ricky Davis (or Mike James). Guys who take a lot of shots and don't seem to care from where or what is going on in the game (or what their percentage is).
Archetypes of former Rockets: Kenny Smith: Pure Shooter, Veteran Floor General Matt Bullard: Three Point Shooting Big, Locker Room Chemist Scottie Pippen: Aging Perimeter Force, Question Mark Stromile Swift: Question Mark, Lottery Bust Robert Horry: Ring Bearer, 3-Point Bomber Sam Cassell: Scoring 'Combo Guard', Ring Bearer Mario Elie: Intangible Role Player, Hustle Player Mike James: Chucker, Cancer Kelvin Cato: Raw, Project Center, Do Nothing Bonzi Wells: Question Mark, Cancer Steve Francis: Scoring combo guard, High Talent Low-IQ Wing Player, Aging Perimeter Force (now)
The center position is so weak right now that saying Yao is the best isn't really all that big of a deal. He has to be compared to guys like Tim Duncan and KG.
My main problem with this ranking is the hierarchy. These traits are just that: traits. You can't place any kind of ranking because the traits themselves can't be ranked. That's like saying speed is better than power, or height is better than quickness. What you need to rank is the talent level or the player exhibiting the trait. Take for example the Pass-first pointguard VS the pure shooter. According to the hierarchy, the pass first pg is better. By that logic, is Rafer Alston better than Kevin Martin? Another example would be the cancer vs lottery bust. Darko Milicic is a lottery bust. Starbury is a cancer. If both can be had for vet min which would you get? Not only that, a lot of the terms are the same! What's the difference between an explosive wing and a range-less slasher? How about an intangible player and a hustle player? And since when did an aging perimeter force (he's still a perimeter force right? Only aging...) and a veteran floor general become a bad thing? Having a Cancer on the same level as getting a brute rebounder? LOLs The most flawed example would probably be the Chucker vs Pure shooter/Mortal Scorer/Surreal Scorer. They are the same! The only difference between these four is the rate in which they make the shots...in that case they are not ranking "traits" at all but the talent level of the respective player (i.e. Kobe is a surreal scorer, Jason Richarson is a mortal scorer, Kevin Martin is a pure shooter and Rafer Alston is a chucker). The result is not a classification of ranking by archetypes, or a ranking by talent level but an inconsistent mix of both. As it is these rankings get a "fail" IMHO
Yao is completely dominant down low offensively, His efficiency scares the hell out of the entire league................... Defensively, well he is freakin 7-6.......
A "refined big man" does not seem like the label I'd but on someone like Shaq... to me Shaq, in his prime, was more of just a pure, atheletic, dominating force. He had little actual "refinement" in his offensive or defensive approach, aside from get in the paint and wait to dunk it on the pitiful crop of big men playing in that era. The fact that outside of 10 ft he's useless with a jump shot doesn't scream refinement to me either. For Christ's sake, the man is as good a FT shooter as your average middle school gym class student. Don't get me wrong, in his prime he was great and dominated the competition-but refined? I understand that by the definition of the damned tiers system it fits to call someone like Shaq a refined big man, but were I to just hear the term "refined big man" the first thing I'd think would be Yao Ming. Not only does he fit most of the criteria set out for "refined big man" but he doesn't rely on his size and natural athletic ability (or lack thereof?) the way other big men might. Yao has a refined touch on his shots, he can back you down inside just as easily as he can sink a midrange shot or free throw, and some of the moves he uses inside lately are incredibly fluid for a man of his size. Yao also gets points on his uncharacteristic leadership, based around his likeable, disarming nature and outstanding play-he's never gonna be an aggressive loud mouth or team "ra-ra" guy, but this is his team and he leads by example. He can be frighteningly dominant, offensively and defensively, just not consistantly enough (though when he got injured last year he was beginning to). I think him coming into his prime was somewhat hampered by injury, and if he can miss less than 10 games a season, Yao will truly come into his prime this season or next... perhaps becoming consistantly fiercesome. Anyhow, my point was... not only is this tier system deeply flawed, but I feel the catagories are a bit misleading. Someone like Shaq or Howard being called "refined" instead of dominant, or something, doesn't sit well with me... but what the hell is a renaissance man in relation to basketball? Does that mean Kobe Bryant is writing a play about Christianity set in historic Italy, or Lebron James is painting the ceiling of some cathedral (instead of making sure his bubble gum flavor is more available in stores like he should be)? Frankly, it's a lame term, but I take it to mean... someone who straight up changes the game; completely closing the door on the previous era, while starting a new, revitalized era in the present. If that's the definition, there are only a handful of players in history that can be called a "renaissance man". Wilt, Bill Russell, and Jordan are all that come to mind right this second-though I suppose the case could be made for Kobe and Lebron currently as well. Guys like Hakeem, Bird, Dr.J, Shaq, etc were all legends in their own right, but freaking "renaissance" men? I don't think so... Shaq could have been a renaissance man maybe... if Jordan retiring hadn't sucked all the life (and somehow the talent) out of basketball up til a few years ago. I'm gonna just go out on a limb though and say Yao Ming is a renaissance man! He helped bring the game to tens of millions of people the way no one else has or could have, and I think everyone knows the future of basketball depends heavily on expected international growth and participation. Yao Ming has helped usher in a global "enlightenment" towards b-ball that we have just begun to experience; thus, Yao Ming is the true renaissance man! Suck on that, heavily flawed tier classification system!
Shaq is very refined....... Do you understand how many baskets that man has scored with his beautiful jump hook? To the right or to the left............He is as refined as they come......
