Role player or All star

[PaperChasing59]

I have a question is a role player who can fit an important role on a championship level team actually a better player than an all star who has to be the man on his team but is not necessarily good enough to win a championship leading his team? The role player can play in multiple systems and contribute because of there intangibles and hard play as opposed to certain players who are all stars but can't excel the way they want because either they need to be the man but wont win or if they do play with a all star they don't mesh well and don't contribute and end up being seen as overrated. An example would be would you rather have excellent role players like Michael Cooper or a Charles Oakley just for example sake or have a player who people consider a so called all star player like a Danny Granger or someone people find overrated that can't lead a team to the championship because they cant lead on there own or cant play with another star player. Don't mean to single these players out but using them as examples. I'm asking what type of player would you rather have because I feel role players can be undervalued and may even be better than some so called all stars when it comes to a 5 on 5 game not necessarily 1 on 1. I mean the whole point is to win games right? So if a person with less skill leads to more wins, while the other person is just a scorer but can't mesh well with others, who is actually the better ball player?

[The15thunter]

Re: Role player or All star

so, you're asking if robert horry, for example, is better than charles barkley or karl malone? or do you mean better than someone who is more talented and produces good numbers, but isn't a winner, like vince carter?

[ojandpizza]

Danny Granger was a poor example, he's not at the super star level of a LeBron or Kobe or Durant to carry a team alone, but he is an all star an excellent teammate, works hard, and has continued to improve over his career.. Until now he's never been fortunate enough to have any sort of help from teammates or been in a situation to accomplish much.. I believe he was the only player to ever increase his scoring numbers by 5 PPG in each of his first 4 seasons in the league, that alone shows you how much he's willing to improve and become that go to guy..

Throwing him under the bus with guys who can't mesh well with other guys or is a bad teammate is harsh..

[PaperChasing59]

Re: Role player or All star

so, you're asking if robert horry, for example, is better than charles barkley or karl malone? or do you mean better than someone who is more talented and produces good numbers, but isn't a winner, like vince carter?

I meant more so a player probably like Vince Carter who may be talented but is not considered a winner and never made it far leading teams, because both Barkley and Malone led teams to the finals and were MVPs. Barkley and Malone came close they both just lost to Jordan in the finals if that's a vailid excuse. That said even some people would say that they are still not winners and could not win. They didn't do it leading teams in there respective primes or later in there career when they teamed up with other all-star players, Barkley in Houston or Malone in L.A.

I guess its how you look at it because I meant more fringe, on the brink all stars who cant mesh with others rather than Hall of Famers, examples may be a Stephon Marbury or Steve Francis or even Vince Carter. Players who don't have a title and were seen as bad leaders, but if a case can be made that even some hall of famers can't win then yes I ask if the role players are actually better in a 5 on 5 game?

Remember basketball is a team sport and the ultimate goal is to win a championship. Sounds crazy but just for argument sake how do you guys feel? I definitely feel that top notched all stars like Barkley and Malone are better but when you think about it a case can be made if you feel they are overrated.. Would Rodman be a better player to have on a team trying to win? I mean he's not the scorer of the two mentioned above but he did do things that they wouldn't to win games some will say and he did win championships on the bulls and pistons. While Barkley failed in Philadelphia, Phoenix, and when he tried to capture a late one with Pippen and Olujawon in Houston. I ask and I know it sounds crazy but is there a point to this, are some all stars overrated or even Hall of famers because that wasn't my original question really with the Hall of Famers but if you want to bring up that point I guess it can be asked as well.

What do you think? I really want to concentrate on fringe all stars being better or not than solid role players depending on your opinion, not necessarily comparing them to hall of famers. The reason being is because I know what people will say, but if you feel a Hall of Famers is overrated in the sense that they can't lead to wins state your case.

[PaperChasing59]

Re: Role player or All star

Danny Granger was a poor example, he's not at the super star level of a LeBron or Kobe or Durant to carry a team alone, but he is an all star an excellent teammate, works hard, and has continued to improve over his career.. Until now he's never been fortunate enough to have any sort of help from teammates or been in a situation to accomplish much.. I believe he was the only player to ever increase his scoring numbers by 5 PPG in each of his first 4 seasons in the league, that alone shows you how much he's willing to improve and become that go to guy..

Throwing him under the bus with guys who can't mesh well with other guys or is a bad teammate is harsh..

Yeah he is a bad example but I just used him as a way to throw a name out there because maybe he is not a super star like some thought he would be but he does mesh well with people on his team. It was more so me using a bad example to get a point across, didn't mean to throw him under the bus.

[The 24th Letter]

Not trying to be funny, but are paragraphs disabled again? I know this happened one time before when Tapatalk had an upgrade. I can hardly keep track of what you are saying OP.

[AlexBrady]

Re: Role player or All star

The prototypical role player doesn't need the ball to make a tremendous impact on the game. These guys will box out, fill the lane, set screens, defend, and keep the ball moving. In todays game, players totally disregard this necessity because balltime=stats=money.

Who were the best role players of all time? Bill Russell, John Havlicek, Scottie Pippen, Dave DeBusschere, Dennis Rodman and Bobby Jones rate at the top.

[ojandpizza]

^ I don't think he was considering all star and super star level players as a "role-player"

To me there is no way Bill Russell and Scottie Pippen can be considered role players.. Though he wasn't the first scoring option Pippen was a multiple all star, a sidekick to Jordan and even had his shot at leading the team alone when Jordan left.. And Russell, while he had some role-player like tendsncies about his game, was always the captain of that celtics team.. I don't think you can be your team leader or captain, much less the best player and be considered a "role-player"

[ojandpizza]

I think this whole argument depends on how good the role player is and how good the all star is.. I mean you obviously wouldn't pick Norris Cole who just won a ring, over an Allen Iverson who was a 1 man show that never won anything.. But on the other side you have a guy with multiple all stars like Amar'e Stoudamire vs. LaMarcus Aldridge who as far as I know still hasn't been an all star.. But he also hasn't been a role player on a championship squad either..

I can't think of a scenario where there has been a good enough role player on a championship level team to replace an all star caliber player off the top of my head.. Usually if your team is championship level and you're a good player you become an all star...

The closest thing I can think of was the nuggets trading Iverson for Billups

[BringTheHeat]

Re: Role player or All star

The prototypical role player doesn't need the ball to make a tremendous impact on the game. These guys will box out, fill the lane, set screens, defend, and keep the ball moving. In todays game, players totally disregard this necessity because balltime=stats=money.

Who were the best role players of all time? Bill Russell, John Havlicek, Scottie Pippen, Dave DeBusschere, Dennis Rodman and Bobby Jones rate at the top.

In the current NBA, where would you rate Udonis Haslem? He's my third favorite player and I've always loved having him in Miami.

[Streaky McFloorburn]

Re: Role player or All star

In many ways, this question as currently framed is unanswerable. Championship teams are often full of role players who have been All-Stars or could/would be in the future or on lesser teams. Given similar levels of skill, the player who is willing to put ego aside for the sake of the team is always more valuable.

If the question is who we'd start a team with, I'm sure everyone would take any All-Star over even a premium specialist like Battier or Sefolosha, but if you already have a couple of star caliber players, it might make sense to complete the team with role players, especially if salary is a concern and we're not talking about an Olympic team or something like that.

OP, if you want a real answer, name 11 guys and ask us to fill the final roster spot.

Oh, and Aldridge was an All-Star reserve last year, ojandpizza.

[wwharton]

Re: Role player or All star

I meant more so a player probably like Vince Carter who may be talented but is not considered a winner and never made it far leading teams, because both Barkley and Malone led teams to the finals and were MVPs and came close they both just lost to Jordan in the finals if that's a vailid excuse but even so some people would say that they are not still winners themselves and could not win with other stars because they didn't do it in there respective primes or later in there career when they teamed up with other all-star players, Barkley in Houston or Malone in L.A. I guess its how you look at it because I meant more fringe, on the brink all stars who cant mesh with others rather than just Hall of Famers, example may be a Stephon Marbury or Steve Francis or even Vince. Players who don't have a title and were seen as bad leaders, but if a case can be made that even some hall of famers can't win then yes I ask if the role players are actually better in a 5 on 5 game? Remember basketball is a team sport and the ultimate goal is to win a championship. Sounds crazy but just for argument sake how do you guys feel? I defintely don't feel that way about top notched all stars like Barkley and Malone but when you think about it a case can be made i guess. Would Rodman be a better player to have on a team trying to win? I mean he's not the scorer of the two mentioned above but he did do things that they wouldn't to win games some will say and he did win championships on the bulls and pistons. While Barkley failed in Philadelphia, Phoenix, and when he tried to capture a late one with Pippen and Olujawon in Houston. I ask and I know it sounds crazy but is there a point to this, are some all stars overrated or even Hall of famers because that wasn't my original question really with the Hall of Famers but if you want to bring up that point I guess it can be asked as well. What do you think? I really want to concentrate on fringe all stars being better or not than solid role players depending on your opinion, not necessarily hall of famers because I believe I know what others would say but answer both scenarios.

Please break your thoughts up into paragraphs. Good posts, but many will probably skim bc it's hard to keep up with it all bunched together.

[AlexBrady]

Re: Role player or All star

^ I don't think he was considering all star and super star level players as a "role-player"

To me there is no way Bill Russell and Scottie Pippen can be considered role players.. Though he wasn't the first scoring option Pippen was a multiple all star, a sidekick to Jordan and even had his shot at leading the team alone when Jordan left.. And Russell, while he had some role-player like tendsncies about his game, was always the captain of that celtics team.. I don't think you can be your team leader or captain, much less the best player and be considered a "role-player"

They were Hall of Fame caliber role players. Guys who executed five man concepts. Supreme forces on defense. Masters of all the grubby little details that the media ignores.

In the current NBA, where would you rate Udonis Haslem? He's my third favorite player and I've always loved having him in Miami.

A rock solid role player. Dirt tough defender and loves to bang the boards. He'll screen and fill lanes. Saves his shots for clutch situations. Every team needs a player like Haslem.

[Dice]

Re: Role player or All star

^ I don't think he was considering all star and super star level players as a "role-player"

To me there is no way Bill Russell and Scottie Pippen can be considered role players.. Though he wasn't the first scoring option Pippen was a multiple all star, a sidekick to Jordan and even had his shot at leading the team alone when Jordan left.. And Russell, while he had some role-player like tendsncies about his game, was always the captain of that celtics team.. I don't think you can be your team leader or captain, much less the best player and be considered a "role-player"

Agreed. There is NO WAY Bill Russell or Scottie Pippen are considered 'role-players'. Despite the fact that 'role-players' play a big part of championships, they are more interchangeable than superstar players.

You can find 10 more players that can do what John Paxson, Robert Horry and even Michael Cooper does. But you'd be hard pressed to find one guy to do what a Bill Russell or a Scottie Pippen does. The Celtics don't win any of those championships without Russell. The Bulls don't win 6 titles without Pippen.

[PaperChasing59]

Re: Role player or All star

Comparing role players to Pippen and Russell are bad examples to me because they both do the little necessities to win that you would sometimes get from role players. That's why they are considered winners and have won multiple titles.

I was comparing role players mainly to all stars that cant play well with others and are not willing to sacrifice for the team. They can't do that or if they are the best player they are not good enough to lead teams over the top. So what i'm basically saying is if a player is talented but cant take you over the top are they really that good. The whole point of basketball is to win and help your team win not score 30 points or have 10 assists and look nice out there. If you can do that and do it efficiently than do so, but not at the detriment of winning.

So if a role player can sacrifice and lead to wins in a certain situation while the more talented player cant lead or play well with others are they really better. I was thinking more so of guys who go out in the first round like a Steve Francis or Stephon Marbury. Think about it, if I said who's a better player to a random person, Michael Cooper or Amare Stoudemire they would say Amare, but if you cant build a championship caliber team to win around Amare or if he has trouble playing with others what good is he really in a sense when it comes to winning as opposed to a Cooper who will do the necessities in a given situation which will lead to wins.

Now Michael Cooper can't lead you to a title but neither can Amare. Cooper however has proven to be able to help win and play a major role around other stars to win. Amare now still has to prove that. Maybe he will, maybe not. I hope everyone can see my point exactly now. Think about it some guys are just over paid box office stars.

My favorite player Allen Iverson led a team to the finals and many would say he is better than lets say a Ray Allen. Maybe in getting closer to win a title leading a team but Ray was better at sacrificing to win when he came to Boston and won a title, which is the ultimate goal. Think about it Iverson, couldn't win leading on his own or with others, think Detroit or even Denver where he would lose in the first round. He didnt play defense or do the little things while Ray Allen improved his Defense and played a more team oriented style which lead to wins. See what Ray Allen did wont show in his stats, they actually went down but his impact was arguably more important. Now Ray Allen is not a role player but he is a winner. I just used him as a example, don't compare role players to all stars who are winners in the sense that they will do the necessities to win. Compare the role players to the Vince Carter's and Amare Stoudemire's. Those type of players.