Erick Blasco's Top 30 NBA Small Forwards

[His Greatness]

Besides the specialists though, which player above Gay is really a worse scorer? Everyone up there has scoring abilities roughly equal to Gay except for maybe Turkoglu who makes up for it somewhat by being a fantastic distributor and clutch shooter. Gay can put the ball in the basket. So can many other wings.

 

Shawn Marion? In an open-court offense like the one Memphis runs, he'd score a bunch of points. Rashard Lewis can score. Wilson Chandler is close to being a featured player of an offense, he's that talented.

For the most part, it was the specialists that I was referring to.

 

BTW, Marion isn't sharp enough to be a reliable scorer anymore, even in that system. And calling Wilson Chandler a featured scorer on offense or anything close to it is way off IMO. I was very underwhelmed by him in every game I saw, and he posted some inefficient (and inflated) numbers, even for D'Antoni's system. I don't think he even enters the conversation if he didn't pad his stats in a wide-open offense.

 

And since the prime goal of any NBA team is to win a championship with over half the teams making the playoffs anyway, how adept a player is to performing in the postseason should be a very strong determining factor when comparing players.

No disagreement here, you're a 100% right. But by the same token, is a player like Ariza more equipped than Gay to carry you through a scoring drought? Isn't it plausible that Gay would've done more for New Orleans than Posey in the postseason when they sorely lacked another scorer to take the heat off Chris Paul? What if you're building a team from the ground up? These factors have to be taken into account.

 

What does Gay do besides score, and is he even that special of a scorer compared to all the other small forwards out there?

Nothing. He can't do anything but score, but sometimes that's more conducive to winning, and he doesn't have the same team-damaging baggage as cancers like Randolph to where you can casually overlook him.

 

Gay's a very promising player, but I don't think he's special enough to warrant top 10 consideration yet... I'd still put him over Posey and Ariza, at the least.

[Erick Blasco]

No disagreement here, you're a 100% right. But by the same token, is a player like Ariza more equipped than Gay to carry you through a scoring drought? Isn't it plausible that Gay would've done more for New Orleans than Posey in the postseason when they sorely lacked another scorer to take the heat off Chris Paul?

 

 

That Hornets team lacked a lot of things. I do agree with you that replacing Gay with Posey would've helped for that series, but the Hornets still wouldn't have won. That Hornets team needed another scorer, David West to play like it was the 2008 playoffs, a healthy Tyson Chandler, backups everywhere, an opposing point guard who didn't take advantage of every single one of Chris Paul's flaws, a less stubborn coach, and any two players to replace Stojakovic and Butler (like Rudy Gay!). Scoring is extremely valuable but look at all the shooting guards and small forwards who can score? Neither Gay nor Posey is a difference maker, but more good teams could probably use Posey over Gay.

 

What if you're building a team from the ground up? These factors have to be taken into account.

 

Teams being built from the ground up are going to suck. With Rudy Gay the Grizzlies suck. With Gilbert Arenas, the Grizzlies will suck. With Shane Battier, the Grizzlies will suck. With Kobe Bryant, the Grizzlies might not get swept in the first round but would still pretty much suck.

 

Unless you have an amazing player on a bottom-up team (like Wade on the Heat), that team is going to suck. Should the degree of suck matter? I don't have the exact records around me, but the Thunder had a team of kids who couldn't defend and the Bobcats had a relatively young team that couldn't score and both wound up with similar records. Both will end up with similar records this year.

 

I'm so bad at trying to describe this, but I guess I argue with the framework that the only things that matter in professional basketball are winning championships or putting yourself in the best position to win championships because that's the main objective of every team (and hopefully every player). Being able to carry a bad team from a 20 win season to a 30 win season isn't as big a jump as being able to contribute to a conference finalist that can't get over the hump to being able to contribute to a title.

Edited October 4, 2009 by Erick Blasco

[Diesel]

Thaddeus at 21 = WHAT?

 

He should be in the low teens. He's definetly a better player than a lot of those guys ahead of him such as Pietrus, Gay, Marion, Ariza.

[His Greatness]

That Hornets team lacked a lot of things. I do agree with you that replacing Gay with Posey would've helped for that series, but the Hornets still wouldn't have won. That Hornets team needed another scorer, David West to play like it was the 2008 playoffs, a healthy Tyson Chandler, backups everywhere, an opposing point guard who didn't take advantage of every single one of Chris Paul's flaws, a less stubborn coach, and any two players to replace Stojakovic and Butler (like Rudy Gay!). Scoring is extremely valuable but look at all the shooting guards and small forwards who can score? Neither Gay nor Posey is a difference maker, but more good teams could probably use Posey over Gay.

An excess of scorers doesn't diminish the importance of scoring. Sure, there are several scoring wings, but how many of them as talented as Gay? You can say the same for Posey.

 

I don't deny that established teams might prefer Posey, but then that circles back to my original point about accounting for everything. What if the team doesn't have anyone to be their primary or secondary scoring option? They all started somewhere right?

 

Teams being built from the ground up are going to suck. With Rudy Gay the Grizzlies suck. With Gilbert Arenas, the Grizzlies will suck. With Shane Battier, the Grizzlies will suck. With Kobe Bryant, the Grizzlies might not get swept in the first round but would still pretty much suck.

 

Unless you have an amazing player on a bottom-up team (like Wade on the Heat), that team is going to suck. Should the degree of suck matter? I don't have the exact records around me, but the Thunder had a team of kids who couldn't defend and the Bobcats had a relatively young team that couldn't score and both wound up with similar records. Both will end up with similar records this year.

 

I'm so bad at trying to describe this, but I guess I argue with the framework that the only things that matter in professional basketball are winning championships or putting yourself in the best position to win championships because that's the main objective of every team (and hopefully every player). Being able to carry a bad team from a 20 win season to a 30 win season isn't as big a jump as being able to contribute to a conference finalist that can't get over the hump to being able to contribute to a title.

I think that bias is the biggest/only hole in your logic. Historically, most players have been on that mediocre-below average team. Durant and Granger are there right now. The teams suck, but the players deserve an even field for evaluation, (mostly) separate from their team's accomplishments.