PDA

View Full Version : Team Building: Dominance vs Versatility



Chronz
11-13-2012, 01:48 PM
Building a team from the ground up, would you rather have a group of players who can all do a variety of things or a unit in which each player has his own specialized skill.

For example, Team Versatility would have players who can all do alil of everything, pass, shoot, rebound, create etc...

Team Dominance however would have 1 ball handler/creator, 1 guy who works off screens to shoot, 1 ace defender/rebounder/postscorer.

Would you rather be unpredictable or conventional, a team with an identity or a team that can beat you in multiple ways.

b@llhog24
11-13-2012, 01:51 PM
Versatility.

Ebbs
11-13-2012, 02:03 PM
Dominance.

Shaq, Ray Allen and Steve Nash on team dominance.

Or

Chauncey Billups (prime) - Paul George - Paul Pierce - Pau Gasol - Marc Gasol versatility?

Heediot
11-13-2012, 02:10 PM
I would want to build my team around one main guy. Whether it would be a Duncan, Shaq, Cp3 or LeBron, I want to facilitate my offense and defense around this player. That's why a dominating Big man is a premium because you can build around him on offense and defense. Guys like Jordan and Bron are rare where you can find a wing that can built around offense and defense.

After finding my foundation player, I would surround him with complementary players. Your foundation player should also be the one who ise able to take over when needed(big moments/games/clutch). You can have versatility like Denver and Indy, but if you don't have a guy that can take over you can only go so far. Detroit in their run had versatility and defense, but Billups could take over when it mattered, and Sheed could also hit big shots.

Surrround you star foundational player with good role players that can excel at one thing and if that player can bring more skills to the table, that's even better. Just my view.

ink
11-13-2012, 03:04 PM
Building a team from the ground up, would you rather have a group of players who can all do a variety of things or a unit in which each player has his own specialized skill.

For example, Team Versatility would have players who can all do alil of everything, pass, shoot, rebound, create etc...

Team Dominance however would have 1 ball handler/creator, 1 guy who works off screens to shoot, 1 ace defender/rebounder/postscorer.

Would you rather be unpredictable or conventional, a team with an identity or a team that can beat you in multiple ways.

Good thread idea. Bryan Colangelo seems to believe in versatility. It hasn't helped the Raptors. :(

If you're going for versatility, you will have to have some players who can still dominate. Otherwise, every one of them will be vulnerable on any given night to having the crap kicked out of them by some of the dominant players in the NBA.

JordansBulls
11-13-2012, 03:10 PM
Depends on how dominant the main guy is. I personally prefer balanced teams like the Celtics.

Mikeleafs
11-13-2012, 03:13 PM
DOMINANT! You can cannot win in this league with a 7 footer who is a perimeter scorer and doesn't rebound ...

Chronz
11-13-2012, 03:15 PM
Depends on how dominant the main guy is. I personally prefer balanced teams like the Celtics.

Good example, the Suns in their heyday are another IMO. They had guys with specific roles and they fulfilled them at an elite level.

Can you think of any examples for Team versatility, its harder to find/narrow down great teams built this way but I have a few in mind.

TheWatcher34
11-13-2012, 03:20 PM
I think your "team dominance" is more the idea of traditional basketball (like in the '80s/'90s): each player has his designated position that goes along a more or less strict role to fulfil, which should be in accordance to his skill set (and size, of course). The more different roles are manned on the team, the more balanced the team would be/play as a unit.
for example: Karl Malone"the mail man": delivery mid-range or with force to the hoop/ Stockton or young Kidd: distributor/ Ewing: post-up, score within 5 feet, rebound, block, and so on then you'd have a spot up shooter, maybe one or two crazy characters (Rodman) for the dirty work, ect...

..and versatility is, as the game has been changing, what modern basketball turns into: you have point forwards that can also play on the post (LeBron), you have Centers who can shoot threes (Love), you have centers who are soft and can't stand up to their size underneath the basket (Bargnani), you have Power forwards that take you off the dribble (Dirk) ...

Well, seems like both schemes worked in their respective era! you just need a good composition of different players that complement each other and chemistry to have success (championship).

TheWatcher34
11-13-2012, 03:28 PM
[QUOTE=Chronz;24308432
Can you think of any examples for Team versatility, its harder to find/narrow down great teams built this way but I have a few in mind.[/QUOTE]

the South Beach Boys Ballclub.

Hawkeye15
11-13-2012, 03:30 PM
Good example, the Suns in their heyday are another IMO. They had guys with specific roles and they fulfilled them at an elite level.

Can you think of any examples for Team versatility, its harder to find/narrow down great teams built this way but I have a few in mind.

I would imagine the early 2000's Kings teams fit this profile, outside a pretty damn good Webber.

I would suppose the coach matters too. A coach who can build an offense that is firing on all cylinders when the ball is moving quickly, multiple cutters, with players who can handle the ball at 3-4 positions, and guys with a high IQ.

ewing
11-13-2012, 03:42 PM
I would imagine the early 2000's Kings teams fit this profile, outside a pretty damn good Webber.

I would suppose the coach matters too. A coach who can build an offense that is firing on all cylinders when the ball is moving quickly, multiple cutters, with players who can handle the ball at 3-4 positions, and guys with a high IQ.


I think there are too many teams in the NBA to build that type of team now. I mean you can but its hard.


Mark Price's Cavs teams come to mind for me.

Hawkeye15
11-13-2012, 03:43 PM
I think there are too many teams in the NBA to build that type of team now. I mean you can but its hard.


Mark Price's Cavs teams come to mind for me.

another good example. Ball handlers, passers, and guys who seemed to not play a position many times.

The problem is, historically, star driven teams are the only successful one (outside a few instances), so its pretty easy to pick the dominance one here for many people.

J_M_B
11-13-2012, 03:49 PM
Another good example today would be Miami.

A "Positionless Era" as Spo puts it..

Chronz
11-13-2012, 03:52 PM
I would imagine the early 2000's Kings teams fit this profile, outside a pretty damn good Webber.

I would suppose the coach matters too. A coach who can build an offense that is firing on all cylinders when the ball is moving quickly, multiple cutters, with players who can handle the ball at 3-4 positions, and guys with a high IQ.

I was thinking Kings too. Holzmans Knicks are another.


Another good example today would be Miami.

A "Positionless Era" as Spo puts it..

I was wondering about where they would fit

Hawkeye15
11-13-2012, 03:55 PM
I was thinking Kings too. Holzmans Knicks are another.



I was wondering about where they would fit

The Heat don't fit either imo. They have the most dominant player in the game, and a traditional SG who is also arguably the best at his position. But players like LeBron sort of redefine their positions, so we can't claim them as traditional position players.

ewing
11-13-2012, 04:07 PM
The late 810's Mavs also came to mind. I'm not sure if they are versatile or just deep though ( hell of a team anyway)

NYY 26 to 7
11-13-2012, 05:10 PM
The Heat don't fit either imo. They have the most dominant player in the game, and a traditional SG who is also arguably the best at his position. But players like LeBron sort of redefine their positions, so we can't claim them as traditional position players.

I don't think the OP means dominant like they have a superstar vs a team of boris diaw's. I think dominant is just referring to they fill their role well and they all contribute with their greatest strengths which as a team can cover one another's weaknesses. If that isn't the case of course you would chose the team with the best player - traditionally in the NBA that is what wins great players. Outside of the Pistons in 2004 I can't think of many starless teams to win.

I personally prefer the traditional style to the versatile position-less style that the Heat run with no real center and pg. It also takes very unique players.

KnicksorBust
11-13-2012, 05:22 PM
I wanted the dominant traditional team.


Dominance.

Shaq, Ray Allen and Steve Nash on team dominance.

Or

Chauncey Billups (prime) - Paul George - Paul Pierce - Pau Gasol - Marc Gasol versatility?

In that scenario I take the first team.


Good example, the Suns in their heyday are another IMO. They had guys with specific roles and they fulfilled them at an elite level.

Can you think of any examples for Team versatility, its harder to find/narrow down great teams built this way but I have a few in mind.

My thought was the late 80s Pistons.

JLynn943
11-13-2012, 05:38 PM
It depends on how dominant the players on the dominance team are. I can't help but to think of a player like Jose Calderon, who is a great play-maker but is limited in terms of every other aspect of the game. However, as good as he is at running an offense, a team could focus on eliminating him or altering what he has to do (ex: make him take more shots) and the dominance-oriented team would be seriously hindered.

Unless the dominance team has some very high-quality players with quality backups who can perform the same role, a good team could disrupt the entire team by focusing on a player or two too easily. That's why I think you need at least some versatility. The Pistons had two great specialist players in Rip Hamilton and Ben Wallace who did what they were asked to do extraordinarily well, but they still needed significant contributions in multiple areas from versatile players like Billups and Prince to win.

Versatility can go wrong, too, though. Sometimes you need a go-to scorer or a main play-maker. If the team is really cohesive, maybe no one steps out in those roles, but if the team isn't cohesive, these players who can do a little of everything might all try to dominate.

JasonJohnHorn
11-13-2012, 05:41 PM
I think there is a case for both here. It depends on what tools you have. If you are a small market team, and can't afford to throw money out there like the Knicks and the Lakers, then you might be forced to get the guys who are speciality players. Hopefully you can get the right pieces together for bargain prices under the right coach and not have to many injuries.

If you have a little more liberty to spend, it would be better to build with versatile players, who generally command more of a salary.

both models have had success and both models have failed.

You look at Denver right now and they are sturggling, but over the George Karl years, espcially post-Melo, they have versatile players. They haven't seen a lot of success though. The Heat also have some very versatile players, I mean you don't much more versatile than Wade and James, James espcially, but other guys on the floor do a little bit of everything, Battier is a great 3pt shooter, but he is also a great defender and a solid rebounder for a SF. Bosh has great range and is a fair rebounder. Chalmbers cna handle the ball and pass, though he is not called upon to do so as much in that system, and he's become a great defender and solid 3pt shooter. the Spurs also had some very versatile players over the years and have seen great success. So you see success and failure with that method.

The Pistons of 04 were likely a cast of specialty players. Ben the defensive minded rebounder, Sheed was more versatile, Hamilton great coming off screens, Prince a lock-down defender on the wing, Billups Mr. Clutch and great ball handler. They won a title and had back-to-back finals appearance and were in more consecutive conference finals appearances than anybody since I think the Celtics in the 60's (not sure about that, but it was 6 straight seasons). Iverson's 76ers were build kinda like that too, and they made it to the finals once. OCK is kinda like that now. They got two defenders at PF and C, two prolific scorers, one who rebounds well in Durant and one who passes the ball (sometimes) in Westbrook, and a great shooter in Matrin (Harden was a little more versatile than Martin, but c'est la vie).

It depends a lot on what you have available in fre agency and the draft.

Bravo95
11-13-2012, 06:02 PM
Dominance..... and I'd eventually complain about not having enough versatility.

Chronz
11-13-2012, 06:12 PM
I don't think the OP means dominant like they have a superstar vs a team of boris diaw's. I think dominant is just referring to they fill their role well and they all contribute with their greatest strengths which as a team can cover one another's weaknesses.

Bingo

Hawkeye15
11-13-2012, 07:31 PM
I don't think the OP means dominant like they have a superstar vs a team of boris diaw's. I think dominant is just referring to they fill their role well and they all contribute with their greatest strengths which as a team can cover one another's weaknesses. If that isn't the case of course you would chose the team with the best player - traditionally in the NBA that is what wins great players. Outside of the Pistons in 2004 I can't think of many starless teams to win.

I personally prefer the traditional style to the versatile position-less style that the Heat run with no real center and pg. It also takes very unique players.

Well, thats just it. Nobody else has LeBron James. He should always have the ball in his hands, and does everything well. No other team has a player like that.