If you were a NBA player...

MagicFan3 · Post #21 » by **MagicFan3** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:32 am

risktaker91 wrote:Whichever gets me more money.

Parasight · Post #22 » by **Parasight** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:34 am

Well it pretty much goes like this:

Skill will get paid what teams KNOW the player provides. That said, skilled players are often forgotten. Solid players are hardly remembered (guys who would put up 20/10 numbers). Athleticism will get paid more than what teams THINK a player will provide. As far as legacy, people still remember Shawn Kemp right? Even after his collapse.

Buckeye-NBAFan · Post #23 » by **Buckeye-NBAFan** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:40 am

You have to be an athlete to be in the NBA. Skill is something that can be improved. You can't improve the number of fast twitch muscle fibers you're born with, or your height and wing span.

Give me all the skill in the world, and at 6'3 I'd probably be a Steve Kerr. Give all the athleticism in the world to Dwight Howard, and well, he can't hit a jump shot, but he still wins a lot of games.

Buckeye-NBAFan · Post #24 » by **Buckeye-NBAFan** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:51 am

He Hate Me wrote:When I read this question I was thinking more along the lines of:

Young Ray Allen vs. Dwight Howard...

Ray Allen is in the 99th percentile for athleticism in this country. Howard certainly isn't in the 99th percentile in basketball skills (if by skills you mean shooting and dribbling). I know a lot of guys who could hit 60% from the line. 65-70% is pretty easy.

GJense4181 · Post #25 » by **GJense4181** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 3:10 am

tsherkin wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Jason Richardson is a bad example because he doesn't actually use his athleticism all that effectively. And Josh Smith is a very nice roleplayer but can't score effectively at all, which limits his value.
Jason Richardson's basketball IQ is low, then. Which doesn't fit the classical definition of "skill" but still means improvement could be made. If Jason Richardson developed point guard skills, for example, Charlotte would not have been so devastated by their injuries to Felton/McInnis for that stretch. If an athletic player still hasn't come close to their potential after entering their prime, 6 seasons in the league, something that can be learned is missing.
Josh Smith is a borderline all-star without any semblance of an offensive game or self-control with the ball. He can't handle the ball, can't create *good* shots, and has a broke jumper. Yet two of those can be fixed and higher percentage shots can be learned/trained. If Josh Smith gained one or two pet post moves he'd be able to play PF on any team.
Theoretically, working on his skills could overcome that for either, but I'd rather be the guy with the skills to get it done.
and I'd rather make more money off of my rookie contract and have a lucrative "potential-based" second contract while being selected to all-star games and making sportscenter on a nightly basis. I trust myself enough to know that I do not have a selfish personality and hate losing much more than I enjoy winning, so self-improvement would be spurred by a desire to achieve team success, as well.
Again, we're playing extremes here for no good reason; there is nothing in the OP to suggest that the most skilled player doesn't have athleticism.
and I don't need to be confined by the original poster's ideals, specified or not. Obviously it's hard to quantify *skill* and impossible to even imagine a perfect, maxed-out, physical specimen, but the way I've taken it has been 80% skill/20% athleticism vs 20%skill/80%athleticism (in percentiles).

whoknows · Post #26 » by **whoknows** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 4:27 am

no brainer...skills will ensure many years of success in the league

djtruebeliever · Post #27 » by **djtruebeliever** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 4:43 am

I tend to gravitate more towards the skill side of this argument, because I can think of guys in the nba with nearly unlimited athletic potential who just don't get playing time because of their lack of skill. but if you can shoot, set good picks, play solid D and box a guy out, you are going to play.

Buckeye-NBAFan · Post #28 » by **Buckeye-NBAFan** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 5:49 am

djtruebeliever wrote:I tend to gravitate more towards the skill side of this argument, because I can think of guys in the nba with nearly unlimited athletic potential who just don't get playing time because of their lack of skill. but if you can shoot, set good picks, play solid D and box a guy out, you are going to play.

Playing solid D requires athleticism. Help defense is a little of both, but to stay in front of someone, you need athleticism. To get shoots, you need athleticism. Otherwise, you have to rely on screens and open shots. You need a jump shot to shoot over people as well, where athleticism helps. Boxing out requires athleticism as well, foot speed to get in position, and stay in position.

You give an unathletic guy all the basketball skills in the world, and he's still unathletic, which means he probably won't see a minute of an NBA game. You give an athlete like Hakeem a basketball at the age of 15, and if he stays in the gym, he can become pretty good.

Point forward · Post #29 » by **Point forward** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:24 am

Athleticism gives nice highlight reels ($$$) but skill a longer career. Assuming you have an ok work ethic and max out your talent, in the *CURRENT* NBA I would still take the hops / body / stamina, because NBA focuses so much on 1-on-1 play. In FIBA, I would take skill.

In the current NBA, I would earn more $$$ being D12, J-Rich or Baron Davis than being Dirk, Jeff Hornacek or TJ Ford.