Complementary players VS Supplementary players

[Chill_Will_24]

A complimentary player is dependent on his supporting cast. Player that can play at a great level when he has the right players around him. He compliments his team. These are the players like Deron, Melo, Rondo who at times perform at elite levels but it's usually dependent on who surrounds them.

A supplementary player makes his team better just by being on the court. His play does not depend on his cast as he performs well no matter who surrounds him. These are the rare players like Lebron, Dwight, Paul, and Durant whose skills help the team win games no matter what.

It is just something i came up with. Is it a dumb way to look at NBA players?

This thought came up for me when i was having one of those ridiculous CP3 vs Deron debates over at the Nets forum and came up with a very simple way to explain it to the homer Nets fans; Deron= complementary player and CP3= supplementary player.

This is not a Paul vs Williams debate (because there IS none). I just want to know what you guys think of the whole complementary vs supplementary theory thing i have.

Which stars in the NBA can be considered complementary players and which are the rare supplementary ones? I believe that teams need at least one of the latter to be a contending team.

[KnicksorBust]

Honestly both words make them seem like role players. It sounds more like you're describing the difference between a star player and a superstar.

[Chill_Will_24]

Honestly both words make them seem like role players. It sounds more like you're describing the difference between a star player and a superstar.

I guess.

[Shkelqim]

Thats what i was thinking this sort of makes sense, but Melo will score points no matter what team he's on. Same with Williams i think this is more who do u think is a superstar and who are just stars..

[b@llhog24]

Actually Durant's play is more contingent upon his teams makeup than Melo's is. He's just vastly more productive in his current role.

[Chill_Will_24]

Actually Durant's play is more contingent upon his teams makeup than Melo's is. He's just vastly more productive in his current role.

Idk about that. So you think Melo elevates his teammates with his play more than Durant?

[alexander_37]

Paul was the man in N.O and they played well considering it was him and West. Deron has never carried a team like that so ...

[Chill_Will_24]

Thats what i was thinking this sort of makes sense, but Melo will score points no matter what team he's on. Same with Williams i think this is more who do u think is a superstar and who are just stars..

That is exactly what i am trying to avoid. The words "star" and "superstar" are thrown around so often and are so subjective.

To me a superstar is a player who performs at a great level no matter the coach, the system, or what players surround him. Players that squeeze every drop of talent out of even the most inept player simply by their own play.

[Andrew32]

I think of it more like... in terms of role.

Like...

1. Team's Anchor / Engine
2. Team's Co-Anchor / Engine
3. Supporting player

Like even though Kobe was great in 00 and 02 he was still a supporting player those years.

[Chill_Will_24]

Paul was the man in N.O and they played well considering it was him and West. Deron has never carried a team like that so ...

No need to explain this to me.

[RonE Coleman]

Lol nobody can do it by themselves.. And Idk about this, you put Melo on the charlotte bobcats and he can still score 30 points whenever he wants. Same thing with Deron williams, I don't think he regressed playing with the Nets the past 2 years more than he just mailed it in and was waiting on this season where they have a playoff caliber roster.

Personally I think it is a pretty dumb way to look at players, I think its more based on the make up of a team and how the pieces fit.

[b@llhog24]

Idk about that. So you think Melo elevates his teammates with his play more than Durant?

Nope. But he needs to be set up more than any other superstar player in the league. Although he still kicks *** in isolation, a big part of his effectiveness comes in being set up. I think I was explaining this to you in another thread. If Deron and Westbrook switched teams last year both teams would've benefited imo. While Deron is a capable scorer, he still is somewhat of a pass first PG at heart so he relies on his teammates (which would work well with Durant) more than a player like West-brook who helps his team by just straight up dominating his matchup which would probably bode well on the nets.

[KnicksorBust]

Nope. But he needs to be set up more than any other superstar player in the league. Although he still kicks *** in isolation, a big part of his effectiveness comes in being set up. I think I was explaining this to you in another thread. If Deron and Westbrook switched teams last year both teams would've benefited imo. While Deron is a capable scorer, he still is somewhat of a pass first PG at heart so he relies on his teammates (which would work well with Durant) more than a player like West-brook who helps his team by just straight up dominating his matchup which would probably bode well on the nets.

I could see this. But only for last year. Now that they have Joe, I'd rather have a healthy Deron.

[Chill_Will_24]

Nope. But he needs to be set up more than any other superstar player in the league. Although he still kicks *** in isolation, a big part of his effectiveness comes in being set up. I think I was explaining this to you in another thread. If Deron and Westbrook switched teams last year both teams would've benefited imo. While Deron is a capable scorer, he still is somewhat of a pass first PG at heart so he relies on his teammates (which would work well with Durant) more than a player like West-brook who helps his team by just straight up dominating his matchup which would probably bode well on the nets.

Interesting take. Thanks.

[JasonJohnHorn]

I'm not sure I agree with the word choices, but I understand what you are saying.

Rondo is great in certain situations, LBJ is great.

The Detroit Pistons in 04 were all players who were great in certain situations and they all just happened to be in the right situation with each other. Look at Tayshaun Price, he is just as good (if not better) than he was when Detroit won it all, but it doesn't help the Pistons much now because he's not playing in the right context.

I don't think a team ultimately needs an impact player over a situational player. Billups is a situational player, like Rondo, and he helped Denver get to the conference finals when Iverson, who is more of an impact player, never could. And in the inverse role we see that Iverson didn't make the Pistons any better despite being a better player than Billups (though I will concede, as I'm sure any Iverson fan will point out, that Detroit's coaching staff didn't play Iverson the right way to get the best results).