Short point guards who succeed are more impressive to me. As are well-rounded players. Rodman should be considered the greatest rebounder of all time, but he definitely had the advantage of having to expend little energy on offense. The fact that Moses Malone was able to dominate the boards and score 30 ppg has to be kept in mind.
Two Questions About Judging Accomplishments
Firstly, which do you find more impressive a short big-man (i.e. Barkley, Unseld, Wallace) or a short point guard (i.e. - Bogues, Boykins) in terms of being able to be successful in the NBA?
Secondly, what's your take on players specializing on certain skills. For example, Dennis Rodman and Ben Wallace are both known as defenders and rebounders with little offensive ability. Does there ability to concentrate on two skills, instead of having a well rounded game, give them an unfair advantage when considering them as great players (or great defenders) as opposed to players who were generally good at all aspects of the game? It's hard to explain my question, but I hope someone understands the question.
Secondly, what's your take on players specializing on certain skills. For example, Dennis Rodman and Ben Wallace are both known as defenders and rebounders with little offensive ability. Does there ability to concentrate on two skills, instead of having a well rounded game, give them an unfair advantage when considering them as great players (or great defenders) as opposed to players who were generally good at all aspects of the game? It's hard to explain my question, but I hope someone understands the question.
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
i'm impressed by all of them, but it doesn't change the way i ultimately judge them as players.
but i do marvel particularly at the mini-men who are able to make it in the league. you see a guy like barkley, unseld or wallace and you think hey that guy could be an nba player. you see a boykins or a bogues or a robinson, and you think that dude's pretty short.
as for concentrating on one thing, hey, you play to your strengths. however, players should be judged for their entire game, not one aspect of it. for some guys, it's a combo of being in the right circumstance, and then putting their skills to work. 1 dimensional works alot better when there are guys to contribute the other dimensions.
but i do marvel particularly at the mini-men who are able to make it in the league. you see a guy like barkley, unseld or wallace and you think hey that guy could be an nba player. you see a boykins or a bogues or a robinson, and you think that dude's pretty short.
as for concentrating on one thing, hey, you play to your strengths. however, players should be judged for their entire game, not one aspect of it. for some guys, it's a combo of being in the right circumstance, and then putting their skills to work. 1 dimensional works alot better when there are guys to contribute the other dimensions.
I find short point guards to be the most impressive, because they are actually small by NBA standards (sometimes even by normal human standards), not just small relative to their position. To be smaller than everyone on the court, night after night, and still succeed is impressive.
As to your second question, I don't think it diminishes an accomplishment that it isn't accompanied by all-around ability. As long as we evaluate all players by their all-around value, it ends up factored in. Rodman's accomplishments as a rebounder aren't less impressive compared to, say Wilt Chamberlain, because he didn't score like Wilt. However, because Wilt also scored an amazing amount, Wilt is easily the better player.
The accomplishment is what it is; but lack of ability in other aspects limits your value as a player. In the end, though, it's all trade-offs. If Rodman had concentrated more on scoring and had rebounded less, would he have been a more valuable player? Inconclusive...the drop in his rebounding value would have to be weighed against his gain in offensive value. I tend to believe that most players (not necessarily all) are operating at or near peak value...if they could handle more, they'd do more. So, if that value is distributed over many things or one thing, it's still equally valuable.
As to your second question, I don't think it diminishes an accomplishment that it isn't accompanied by all-around ability. As long as we evaluate all players by their all-around value, it ends up factored in. Rodman's accomplishments as a rebounder aren't less impressive compared to, say Wilt Chamberlain, because he didn't score like Wilt. However, because Wilt also scored an amazing amount, Wilt is easily the better player.
The accomplishment is what it is; but lack of ability in other aspects limits your value as a player. In the end, though, it's all trade-offs. If Rodman had concentrated more on scoring and had rebounded less, would he have been a more valuable player? Inconclusive...the drop in his rebounding value would have to be weighed against his gain in offensive value. I tend to believe that most players (not necessarily all) are operating at or near peak value...if they could handle more, they'd do more. So, if that value is distributed over many things or one thing, it's still equally valuable.
Sure, he looks like he could be in the NBA. But at 6'4" (possibly 6'5", but clearly shorter than MJ), Barkley becoming one of the five greatest PF of All Time is probably the most amazing accomplishment I've ever seen in terms of someone outplaying their physical size. I mean, he used to BEAST guys 6'10 on the regular. Just mind-boggling how good his post game/foot work/positioning/knowledge of the game/leverage/strength/whatever else you wanna say was. Simply unbelievable that a 6'4" power forward could win an MVP and average 10+ rebounds for 15 straight seasons. Guy is like Haley's Comet: Won't be seen twice in a lifetime.kflo said:you see a guy like barkley, unseld or wallace and you think hey that guy could be an nba player.
remember, barkley was 6'5, but 300 lbs with tremendous athleticism. it was easy to see why he was successful. to me, it's not a tremendous mystery there. he didn't work harder than everyone else. he was just extremely talented and freakish.
Barkley was 2-6 inches shorter than most big men, but how many big men own a 39" vertical?
since me being 6'5 and barkley being pretty much the same height, i couldnt emagine the work, and mismatch he has had to deal with throughout his career. Most players at his position was almost half a foot taller then him. Thats why i have always loved CB and still to this day think hes the 2nd greatest power forward behind K. Malone since the Modern era(NBA/ABA merger)
To be honest, a short point guard is no big news. Calvin Murphy did allright. Spudd Webb did allright. Muggsy, Boykins, the PG for that crazy Denver team... a PG can be short and still be successfull in the NBA if he got game.Lachlanwood32 said:Firstly, which do you find more impressive a short big-man (i.e. Barkley, Unseld, Wallace) or a short point guard (i.e. - Bogues, Boykins) in terms of being able to be successful in the NBA?
A short big man? Boy, you are bound to take a few hits up and down the court. Battling for positioning, rebounding, boxing out, players way taller (and probably much heavier) than you? The odds are against you. Not only do you need a great body, you need a certain mix of lunacy and drive to make it. This is exactly what i loved about Chuck: he would be the shortest guy in the frontcourt (counting both teams) and still annihilate the competition nightly.
I have nothing against "specialist" players. Rodman is probably the greatest rebounder ever, but only because he disregarded offensive duties. It's all context, really. Were Bobby Jones, Michael Cooper, Dikembe Mutombo good enough to put 4-5 more points in thier statsheet every night? Off course they were. But they were happy playing defense and being heralded for it.Secondly, what's your take on players specializing on certain skills. For example, Dennis Rodman and Ben Wallace are both known as defenders and rebounders with little offensive ability. Does there ability to concentrate on two skills, instead of having a well rounded game, give them an unfair advantage when considering them as great players (or great defenders) as opposed to players who were generally good at all aspects of the game? It's hard to explain my question, but I hope someone understands the question.
But i don't agree mixing Rodman with Wallace. Dennis could very well score around 10ppg with great efficiency. But he went bananas and seemed to get a kick (after getting an offensive rebound, and running backwards with the ball) hearing his team's fans yelling "put it back! put it back!". Dennis was the NBA Joker. He even made 32 3pointers in a season just to try something new. Wallace is different. Wallace can't score (it's not like he doesn't want to do it).
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Professional and College Basketball Forums
A forum community dedicated to Competitive Basketball players and enthusiasts. Talk about everything from the NBA to college basketball to even everything but basketball. It's all here!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Top Contributors this Month
View All
AlienAiden
54 Replies
Bill Russell
39 Replies
Bingo v2.0
37 Replies
Recommended Communities
