Would you...

[Pointguard]

Just to have something to dicuss,

Would you rather have a Adrian Griffin/Ben Wallace type of offensive player that gave you absolutely nothing on offensive and was probably a liability or a ineffective offensive player like Que Richardson/Steve Francis that got assists, but turned the ball over and scored points but shot a bad%?

The positives for the Big Ben/Griffin type would be they dont take shots, allow your scorers to get the touches, ect. The negatives are obviously the defense sags off them and helps on your scorers.

The positives for the Q-Rich/Francis type are they will give you something offensively and keep the defense honest, but the negative is that they may cost you as much as they benefit you.

Ignore what they do good or bad on the defensive side of the floor.

[23]

Re: Would you...

As long as you have someone who can draw the double, the Ben Wallace types always have some kind of opportunity to score at some point.

With that, they have a role on the team, and can contribute within a team system doing so.

A s=Steve Francis type leaves negative numbers not only for himself, but also for his teammates, thus hurting the entire team, and is the most damaging style to team play.

Using all of the teams resources (FGA) to chuck, and turn the ball over is almost always a sure fire way of losing.
Most guys like that dont play defense either

[Kruza]

Re: Would you...

Nice topic.

In the 80s up to the early 90s I would easily prefer the Ben Wallace and Adrian Griffin types who are totally unselfish yet are unskilled offensively. But with the way the NBA is today with no hand-checking on the perimeter and other rules that decidedly favors offensive players who can put the ball on the floor, players like Steve Francis and Q-Rich could help and not hinder team as much with their selfishness with the ball.

And a big factor that often gets overlooked is that with the implementation of zone defenses in the league, it makes it far easier to bog a team down offensively now if they're basically playing 4-on-5 halfcourt ball with an unskilled offensive player on the floor than it was during the aforementioned time period. This is because it allows the opposing team to position multiple help defenders at spots that would've been illegal to do in the past.

Kruza

[Jayhawk]

Re: Would you...

Look at the players who make it to the playoffs. Sure, it's a team, but just with the examples given, Griffin and Wallace are playing deep into June every year. Perhaps I'm just biased because I perfer the "hardworking defensive" players.

[Vince]

Re: Would you...

I would never take Q or Francis on my team. I don't like players who have low basketball IQ's, turn the ball over and jack up shots like they're going out of style.

[Altimus]

Re: Would you...

Thank you but I'll stick with Griffin/Wallace. I would never want Q. Rich or Francis on my team. Plus with Hinrich, Gordon, Deng developing why would I want to bring in more expirenced guards and just dump those guys? Now if it was a comparison for Wallace/Griffin VS Garnett/Harrington. Got to go with Garnett and Harrington.

[TheMatrix31]

Re: Would you...

It all depends on who else I have on my team.

[dieselboy]

Re: Would you...

Definately the defensive type guys.

I would love to have a Bruce Bowen, Ben Wallace, Reggie Evans, type player on my team.

[4BiddenKnight]

Re: Would you...

Ballhoggers, chuckers and selfish players like Francis and Q Rich are never wanted on any of my team if I was the GM. Players like them gives you 0% of what you want on your team.

However, the Ben Wallace type of player gives you at least the entire defensive end and some offense. I take those players over Francis or Q Rich in a heartbeat.

[Pointguard]

Re: Would you...

Definately the defensive type guys.

I would love to have a Bruce Bowen, Ben Wallace, Reggie Evans, type player on my team.

No, thats just it.

Dont focus on the player but the type of player. The question isnt specific on Ben Wallace, but a player with no offensive ability and thus a liability on that end.

Let me put it this way to make it easier...


Ryan Bowen or Que Richardson?

Dont factor in defense, just offense..

But the original idea is basically on any team would you rather have...

A) A player that cant score and wont try to do so, though it make hurt the team in the process

or

B) A player that can score, but isnt efficient at doing so.

Note: Its not a selfish player or ballhog per-say.

Look at Emeka Okafor. He turned the ball over 2.1 times a game this past season, shot 41% from the field, only had 1.2 assist/game and shot the ball more than 12 times a game. He's not selfish. He's not a ballhog. He's not a chuncker.

He is however a ineffective scorer, or was so last year in his limited games.

Woudl you rather have that offensively that gave you something, just not as a great rate and kept the defense honest or the otherwise, where the player wont take the shots, but may hurt the team offensively because of that..

The defensive side isnt relevant to this topic...

[4BiddenKnight]

Re: Would you...

If this was a video game, picking players purely on offense, Starbury and Q Rich would do.

If you add in all the personality, chemistry, defense, all that stuff into consideration, it doesn't come close as I'd pick Big Ben and Adrian Griffin all day all night.