Kawaii Leonard wrote:lessthanjake wrote:Kawaii Leonard wrote:
Why are you so black and white? Please link me to where you’re getting spoon fed this definition.
1) you can be a system player and a star (other examples: John Stockton and Karl Malone, Kawhi, Klay)
2) system players can still produce outside of that system and be stars (example: Deron Williams or any pg that played under Thibs)
3) if you’re as good as Curry is, he will still put up the numbers but you are not going to win without the system Kerr tailor made and implemented
4) You really believe Jordan wasn’t going to win without Phil or the triangle?
I don’t understand what your point is.
If, by your way of thinking, you can be a “system player” and “still produce outside of that system and be stars” then what even is a “system player” to you? At that point, you’re just defining “system player” to be a player who is optimally used in a certain specific system. But that’s a totally meaningless point, because every single player in the history of basketball has specific relative strengths and weaknesses that make it so that they are optimally used in a specific system. So you’re essentially defining “system player” to be every player who has ever picked up a basketball. Furthermore, the best players in history are very likely to be put in a system that is optimal for them, because they are obviously the players that teams build around and try to optimize. Steph Curry is one of the best players in history and, unsurprisingly, was eventually put in a system that was pretty optimal for his game. That’s really no different than essentially any top-tier all-time great ever. And actually, Steph was arguably *unlucky* in this, since he was not played in a system that optimized his strengths in his early years, while some players have gotten that from the beginning of their career. In essence, everyone is a “system player” by your definition, and Steph was simply unlucky to not always have been played in the right system.
I’ve made 4 very easily understandable points right there.
What exactly is yours with stating the obvious fact when you break the game down to the x’s and o’s, every player has played under a system. Some need it that custom made to fit their skillsets. In this case, Curry’s need to find specific ways to get open for his shots. The reliance and necessity is right there being the player he is. I don’t see him winning a ring outside the one Kerr implemented. I do see other all time greats winning in multiple others. Hence, a system player.
This is not consistent with what you previously said. If Curry “can still produce outside of that system and be [a] star,” as you concede, then he plainly does not have any “reliance” or “necessity” to play under a specific system.
To the extent you have an argument, it appears to be that Steph could be a star under other systems but wouldn’t win titles without an optimal system. For one thing, that’s wholly speculative, since he had that system for all but maybe the first year of his prime (a year he led his team to a 5+ SRS season and a +9.2 net rating with him on the court, I’d add). We have no idea if you’re right. Indeed, the fact that his teams in his peak years were so cartoonishly good is actually strongly suggestive of the idea that they could’ve still won titles even if they were not used as optimally as they were. They had room to play less well and still win! Second of all, the point you’re making is an extremely narrow one, because winning a title is really hard and it’s virtually never the case that a team wins a title while using their best player in a sub-optimal way. What player is winning titles playing in a system that isn’t suited to them? Jordan only won with the triangle. LeBron only won with heliocentrism. Magic only won with his brand of fast break and post offense. I could go on. If not having won a title while being played in a sub-optimal system makes someone a “system player” then pretty much everyone in history is a system player. You say you “see other all time greats winning in multiple other[] [systems],” and I’d ask you to elaborate on that because it’s hard to really think of any. I’d also point out that, practically speaking, being able to win in multiple systems isn’t really even much of a benefit, because if you’re a high-level all-time great like Steph, you’re basically virtually guaranteed to get a system that’s designed around you, because teams essentially always design their system around an all-time great if they have one. So, an all-time great’s ability to win in a different, less optimal system is almost always nothing more than a hypothetical.
