BadBaronRudigor

Please try to come up with a good definition of the word "roleplayer."

(1)Is it a player who, while possessing one major skill set, is average at best in other areas? (ie Dennis Rodman, Dell Curry . . . Michael Redd?)

(2)Is it a player who is not a primary scorer? (ie. were Wes Unseld, Bobby Jones, John Stockton roleplayers?)

(3) Is it based on minutes per game? (ie, is Ben Wallace not a roleplayer if they play him 35 minutes a game?)

Inquiring minds want to know . . .

__________________
If you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk

Najee

__________________
"(Mike) Tyson got a bad rap. He's NEVER messed with anyone outside of boxing. ... What normal person has Tyson blown up on?"

TRAGEDY, who made arguably the most inexplicable quote of 2008.

kflo

a role player is anyone who's not a franchise cornerstone player, imo. most players are either role players, or ideally suited to be a role player. jerry stackhouse, for example, is a nice role player. now. a poor cornerstone player, but nice role player. role players provide support to the cornerstones.

luther

Someone who consistently fills a role. In other words, he is counted upon to play and do [task]. That means anyone who regularly plays minutes and contributes something is a role player. The role might be one skill (rebounding, defense, shooting) or it might be providing depth at a position and contributing in several categories while on the court (Bobby Jackson in his prime would score on penetration, play defense, gather loose balls, get assists and sometimes get hot from outside, but he was always a role player.) Most of all, I don't think role player is an insult. It shouldn't have any negative connotations. But that said, there are different roles. Some role players are asked to bring 3 points, 4 rebounds and solid post defense for 15 minutes a night (without checking stats, I'd guess Ervin Johnson was close to that the year he started as Wolves center...and they made the W.C. Finals.) Another role player may be a double digit scorer.

However, then I'd build a pyramid to account for better players. I'd go with complementary players and featured players, for lack of better terms. I try not to worry too much about whether a guy is a role player or complementary player, or a complementary player or a featured player (or a featured player or a star, or a star or a franchise player), because I don't think it matters. The sum of the entire team's production is what matters, and so if there is one franchise player and four complementary players, fine; if there are two featured players and one complementary player and a bunch of really good role players, fine. It isn't important.

So a team of 15 guys probably has one featured player, two to four complementary players, and three to six role players. That isn't to say the final guys on the roster couldn't be role players if given consistent minutes, but if they aren't filling a certain role regularly, I'd probably consider them something else: insurance, the future, etc.