PDA

View Full Version : If a player is more complete, does that necessarily mean he is better?



King P
12-10-2009, 01:00 PM
I hear all the time how a player is more complete and more well rounded. But does that necessarily mean he is better? If Player A is more complete and well rounded than Player B, does that make him the better player?

albertc86
12-10-2009, 01:02 PM
No. Some players don't have the athleticism to put it all together sometimes.

ManRam
12-10-2009, 01:03 PM
No. Dwight Howard is far from a complete player...probably only 60% of what he can be...yet he is better than every other center, some of whom are complete, like Al Horford as an example.

King P
12-10-2009, 01:05 PM
No. Dwight Howard is far from a complete player...probably only 60% of what he can be...yet he is better than every other center, some of whom are complete, like Al Horford as an example.
Thats the thing I was looking at. Man people believe being more complete means better because you are capable of doing more things. If that is the case, then why is Howard the best center? Because there are more complete centers than him

RapToronto95
12-10-2009, 01:19 PM
As an individual player, then the one who is not complete will probably seem like a better player. Why? Because he is known for what he does best. For example, Dwight Howard is known as an athletic, defensive, rebounding strong guy; probably the only center to do so in the league today.

On a team basis, the more complete player will be a better player. Why? Because he helps his team win by doing the little things. For example, Pau Gasol is a great PF/C because he plays defense/posts up, but also can shoot from the outside and setup other players.

So IMO, to answer your question, Player A who is more well rounded is not better than Player B in most cases, but Player A will help out the team more.

amoore87
12-10-2009, 01:49 PM
it depends how complete your team is to determine how good of a player one can be

Wilson
12-10-2009, 01:51 PM
No. Dwight Howard is far from a complete player...probably only 60% of what he can be...yet he is better than every other center, some of whom are complete, like Al Horford as an example.

I think you hit the nail on the head there.

If player A can do five things well, and player B can do three things spectacularly but two things below average, player A is the more complete player but not necessarily the better player. That's obviously simplifying it, but I think people can understand what I mean :p

Storch
12-10-2009, 02:33 PM
This is a pretty dumb question. Who cares? Its a team game.

Chronz
12-10-2009, 02:52 PM
This is a pretty dumb question. Who cares? Its a team game.
Whats dumb about it? How does this being a team game eliminate its validity?

Raph12
12-10-2009, 04:30 PM
Thats the thing I was looking at. Man people believe being more complete means better because you are capable of doing more things. If that is the case, then why is Howard the best center? Because there are more complete centers than him

Because Howard's impact on both ends of the floor are that much larger than any other centers'... there is quite an immense drop off for the center list after Dwight's name IMO.

tr4shb0t
12-10-2009, 04:35 PM
I would say it depends on position as well as what their strong abilities are and the teammates that complement them. I think it obviously means they are better, but in the end it is a team game and the skills as a team are what matter.