[Ryoga]

There's nothing unselfish in a spectacular assist: everyone sees it and it goes into the box score.
A good rotation is unselfish, an easy pass to facilitate the offence is unselfish, boxing out without taking the rebound is unselfish.

A player like Nash is not unselfish when he gives dozen of assists, but when he steps back letting his teamates play unless the need to take over is there.
Then, there's the difference between being selfish and just having a very poor bball IQ, but that's another story.

[Aurelino]

Originally Posted by Ryoga

There's nothing unselfish in a spectacular assist: everyone sees it and it goes into the box score.
A good rotation is unselfish, an easy pass to facilitate the offence is unselfish, boxing out without taking the rebound is unselfish.

A player like Nash is not unselfish when he gives dozen of assists, but when he steps back letting his teamates play unless the need to take over is there.
Then, there's the difference between being selfish and just having a very poor bball IQ, but that's another story.

To make the conversation more confusing, some people might argue that Nash is selfish, in that he just wants to lead the NBA in assists. This is why he shares the ball so much

[The_Notic]

I agree with the poster who said that passing out of double teams/to open teammates is not unselfish, it's smart basketball. To NOT do that would be selfish, but to do it should not be praised by the media.

[Spriggan]

The problem is that people seem to think that every single time someone passes the ball, it's a good decision, no matter what the end result in. Even if they had an open shot and the person they pass it to subsequently turns it over or bricks it, they still passed the ball, so they're cool and unselfish. As if it's impossible to make an unnecessary pass that will only hurt your chance to score on that possession, when taking the shot would have been a much better decision. Isn't it a loss of possession either way, no matter who bricks the shot or turns it over? So then have your best player take most of the shots, since he has by far the best chance out of any of them to put the ball in the hoop. That's how it should be. It's only natural.

Sometimes, shooting the ball is simply the best (and only) option. Don't blame me if I'd rather rest my chances on Kobe putting up shots than Devean George or Smush Parker.

[SeaNet]

Originally Posted by Minstrel

If you like a scorer, he "takes over ballgames" and is "dominant." If you don't like a scorer, he's "selfish."

If you like a passer, he's "unselfish" and a "play-maker." If you don't like a passer, he's "passive."

That's the general rule I've observed. There's really no good, consistent definition of what makes some scorers who dominate the ball valuable and others selfish. It boils down to whether a particular person likes said player or not.

I disagree. There is a time and a place for everything. A scorer is 'selfish' when he can't tell the time and the place for involving others, and he 'takes over ball games' when he can tell when to involve others and when to look for his own shot. Its not something you can evaluate statistically, either. Its about the having a feel for the flow of the game.

[tone wone]

the greatest luxury a star player can have is having the option to "pick his spots." This luxry means you play on a good and well rounded team. Under different circumstances picking and choosing when to look for your shot can be looked as a negative...."coasting" not really into this game.

[Aurelino]

Originally Posted by Spriggan

The problem is that people seem to think that every single time someone passes the ball, it's a good decision, no matter what the end result in. Even if they had an open shot and the person they pass it to subsequently turns it over or bricks it, they still passed the ball, so they're cool and unselfish. As if it's impossible to make an unnecessary pass that will only hurt your chance to score on that possession, when taking the shot would have been a much better decision. Isn't it a loss of possession either way, no matter who bricks the shot or turns it over? So then have your best player take most of the shots, since he has by far the best chance out of any of them to put the ball in the hoop. That's how it should be. It's only natural.

Sometimes, shooting the ball is simply the best (and only) option. Don't blame me if I'd rather rest my chances on Kobe putting up shots than Devean George or Smush Parker.

Exactly. Like others have said, it's easier to be unselfish when you have teammates you can trust to make an open shot. Passing the ball just for the sake of it may hurt a team's chances. Ultimately, winning matters. It depends on the personnel and the style of play. In the Suns system, for example, the FGAs are more or less equally distributed, but it doesn't automatically mean everyone is unselfish.

[kflo]

point is, there's more than one way to be successful. to say "this is how you have to play the game" is dumb. players bring different skillsets to the table. kobe bryant shouldn't play like steve nash and vice versa, because that would be a complete disservice to their teams. jason kidd plays like he does in large part because he has to to be successful. play to your strengths, do what the team needs you to do. it's the unit, not the individual. it's the responsibility of the gm to get the right players around their stars so that their skills are best integrated within the unit. maximize the 5.

[duncan2k5]

im tired of kobe fans making escuses as to why kobe is selfish and takes any shot he likes, regardless of who is open. shooting over a double team, or disregarding an open teammate is selfish. thats why he rubs coaches, teamates, and other NBA players the wrong way. you dont hear any of those i mentioned saying nash, wade, lebron, tim duncan etc is selfish. kobe shooting every shot isn't the best thing for their team...we saw it the past 2 years, he is selfish, so get over it

[Minstrel]

Originally Posted by SeaNet

I disagree. There is a time and a place for everything. A scorer is 'selfish' when he can't tell the time and the place for involving others, and he 'takes over ball games' when he can tell when to involve others and when to look for his own shot. Its not something you can evaluate statistically, either. Its about the having a feel for the flow of the game.

Certainly, but I've never seen a consistent analysis that gets at that. In the end, most people seem to be guided by their biases as to who properly plays in the flow of the game and who doesn't.