This topic contains 5 replies, has 6 voices, and was last updated by AvatarAvatar TRC1991 16 years ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • Posted on: Wed, 06/16/2010 - 6:28pm #17286
    AvatarAvatar
    JRdaFilipino
    Participant

    this post was inspired by Bothteamsplayedhard:

    Ok so every season there are always those players who have breakout seasons and they get max contracts. What the debate (at least what I was wondering) was… just because a player produces big time numbers on a bad team, is he just a product of a bad team? Players pointed out by BTPH> Marbury, Abdur Rahim, Larry Hughes, etc. They all put up really great numbers but on relatively bad teams. So what I am getting at.. is it fair to say they just produce good numbers because they play on a bad team and they are really just “average” and not really big time players? OR… are they really as good as people think, but instead of being a product of a bad team.. a victim of playing on a bad team.. by that I mean, they really are that good, they just have sucky teammates. I think its the latter. I mean, to produce big time numbers, even on a bad team, you have to have some type of star quality, right? I just feel its unfair to say a player who puts up good numbers on a bad team isn’t that good. Stephen Curry puts up good numbers on a bad team, does that make him “not as good”. If so, you’d have to say the same thing about ROY Ty Evan’s wouldn’t you. Anyways, what does everyone on here think? This isnt a very organized post so I hope all you get what I am trying to say. Basically… players like Curry, Marbury, whoever (players with good numbers on bad teams) its unfair to say they’re just a product of a bad team.

    0
  • Posted on: Wed, 06/16/2010 - 6:37pm #333734
    AvatarAvatar
    Dubs30
    Participant

    Was Pau Gasol bad before he was on the Lakers?
    Is Danny Granger bad because he plays on the Pacers?
    If you ask me, “good, but not great players” who are perceived as stars (Andrew Bynum) would not do as well on bad teams.

    0
  • Posted on: Wed, 06/16/2010 - 6:46pm #333737
    AvatarAvatar
    Durantula-35
    Participant

    There were certain players that put up those numbers on bad teams then declined on better teams

    But it would make more sense for players to put up better numbers when not having to share the spotlight with someone as good as them. If Granger had Joe Johnson, would he have the same numbers? Not likely, unless everyone else on the team declined

    0
  • Posted on: Wed, 06/16/2010 - 6:59pm #333741
    AvatarAvatar
    kanebanger
    Participant

    offense is half of the game just because someone scores a lot doesnt mean they make their team any better. Plus the people who play around you is huge. If there is only 1 or 2 good starters you arent going to do well if you look at the teams in the finals the celtics have the big 4 plus people comming off the bench making huge plays allen and big baby and robinson even. Same with the lakers They got pau bryant and artest. They got Odom and brown comming off the bench making huge plays even vujacic made plays. Thats what you need to win good play from starters and bench and Defense not someone trying to be an offensive hero every night and playing no D

    0
  • Posted on: Wed, 06/16/2010 - 7:04pm #333744
    AvatarAvatar
    Hale
    Participant

    The only time players improve their numbers on better teams is when they have: a big man to take pressure off them/get them more open looks or a great passing pg like ala Nash. To say all players who produce on bad teams isn’t right, but it is a player by player basis. Not all of them are great and not all of them are overrated.

    0
  • Posted on: Wed, 06/16/2010 - 7:57pm #333779
    AvatarAvatar
    TRC1991
    Participant

    Dubs30, the reason why Bynum isn’t as effective on L.A. as you think he’d be on a bad team is because in L.A. he is the 3rd option…if he were on new york he’d probably be averaging closer to 20 and 10

    0
  • Author
    Posts

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login