Defining is important I agree - to me a franchise player is a player good enough to lead a team to a title, to be the best player on a Championship team. There are not a lot of these guys - usually about ten of these players in the world. There are Hall of Fame players that met this criteria. Statistics matter - but it isn't the end all-be all. There are some guys that would score in the upper 20's that I would not consider franchise players, and a few others that didn't score 25 points but met that criteria. So - if Jalen were to average 25 points a game, he may be a franchise player or he may not be depending on what else he does. For example, I don't consider Booker a franchise player - I consider him an excellent #2 and likely Hall of Famer. Working against Jalen Green is the fact he has been in the league more than a couple of years and he overall hasn't been efficient or consistent. Working for him is that he has improved in other areas of the game and he has at times played like a franchise player and not for single games, but weeks at a time - that is why I have some optimism. Last year for about a month, he was a top 5 player in the world.
Like....it was an awesome win and I'm loving what I'm seeing. But I would pump the brakes on "we are a contender" and "Green has turned the corner" and "Alpy is a budding superstar" stuff. It feels like a ****ing subreddit in here at times with the annoying circle jerking. We're performing above expectations. I'm optimistic about a WCSF appearance. I'm not sure we can beat Dallas, Denver, Memphis or OKC. If you think having a pragmatic approach to our players and the season is "absurd" you should really go back to Reddit.
You know even if you just include his entire season's scoring output and efficiency it's still higher than universally praised young players like Jalen Williams?
There is nothing unpragamtic about saying that young guys on this team have reasonable star and franchise player level outcomes at their current trajectory.
I don't agree with the premise that we have to have a franchise player to win a championship with the new CBA. With the superstar teams fading away with age, the era of re-loading by buying all the best players is fading away with it. Mulitiple young all-stars can and will compete as early as this year. The other thing I disagree with is that we have a 25% chance of having a "franchise player". If you have a perennial DPOY candidate that will average over 20 points, 10 or so assists (when given the keys), and over 10 rebounds a game, you have a franchise player. We have 3 guys that are already playing at an all-star level, albeit with a small sample size. Any one of them could become a superstar with Amen the most likely.
Counting stats only tell part of the story. You will have a hard to convincing any NBA fan that Williams is better than Green as of today.
What's a counting star? Scoring efficiency is a "counting stat"? Green's is literally higher than Williams. You are right, it would be hard to convince outsider non fans that Williams and Green are in the same breath of conversation... Possibly due to how negative Nancy the fans of this team are and **** talk Green always giving a very negative perception? I'm not saying Green is better than Williams. I'm saying the Jalen Green for the entire season so far is a more efficient scorer than Williams and I bet my left but most NBA fans would be surprised by that fact due to how even Rocket fans discuss Green.
I didn't say they cannot be - I said that I do not think it is likely. By the time Jason Tatum was 22 years old, he was averaging 26.5 points a game, shooting nearly 40% from 3 and getting 7.5 rebounds and 4.5 assists a night. At 21 years old he was already efficient, defending well and getting 23.5 points a night....... Green turns 23 next month........ Sengun is 22 years old, and while his numbers are impressive, he hasn't been as good as Tatum at the same age...... Amen Thompson is about to turn 22 as well. They are all promising but not like Tatum was at that age. Also - as for Booker, he wasn't the best player in that Suns team. The best player was Chris Paul. Booker was very good though, but he was also already dropping 25 a night by the time he was 21 years old.
You also said scoring output.... measured by counting stats. Offense isn't the only metrics to use either. I'm not getting into argument about perception of Green by Rockets fans which is some deserved and some isn't. I want Green to exceed but I'm not going to just hand wave away all of his inconsistency or the flashes of an elite offensive player.
It's not a player who has ALREADY done it, it's a player who is good enough to do it. Big big difference. You don't have to win one to meet the criteria. And it's up to your personal judgement, like, I still think James Harden was good enough to win a championship. Just because it didn't happen doesn't mean he wasn't good enough to do it. So I consider him a franchise player.
If you asked a random NBA fan who is a more efficient scorer this season, how many would say Green without looking it up? Hardly any. And my point here is that a lot of perceptions of who is better is based on narrative. Narrative usually lags behind on court play. Williams is still probably better than Green at the moment but the gap is much closer than league fandom perception.
I get the difference. I’m saying it’s a cowardly bar because (1) it’s purely subjective; and (2) can’t be disproven absent actually winning the championship.
Well yeah of course its subjective, what's the alternative? Are you setting a PPG limit to qualify for franchise player status? Minimum number of win shares? How could it not be purely subjective?
To me, I would say a top 15 player in the league is a “franchise” player. I can defend my position that a particular player is a top 15 player with facts and comps, and those opposing it can attack it with facts and comps. That is not the case based on a definition of “someone I personally feel is good enough to be the main guy on a championship team.”
Jalen Williams is a very good young player - but he isn't a franchise player and likely is best suited as a #3 type player on a Championship team.
It’s not about my subjective belief — it’s whether or not I can defend my position objectively, which you can’t do if the definition is “someone who I think is good enough lead a team to a championship.” You always have the defense of, “It hasn’t happened, so thus far I am right,” as well as the claim of, “he could win a championship with the right team,” arguments that literally cannot be attacked because they are supported by hypotheticals.
I'd say a lot of NBA analysts would disagree with this take. He's definitely at worst on a trajectory to be a second best player on a contender.
