Built Ford Tough Posted December 21, 2009 Report Share Posted December 21, 2009 I have thought about making a thread about this for a little while now, but I hever decided to actually make the thread up until now. How much does winning and the market that the player plays in effect how you value that player when it comes to rankings and what not? This may not be a very clear question, so I will try to further explain my point below. When Pau Gasol was in Memphis nobody really compared him to players like Chris Bosh, Amare Stoudemire and Dirk Nowitzki, whether it was because they didn't feel that he was talented enough, won enough or whatever. When it came to the best power forwards in the NBA, Pau was always considered to be below the first tier (Duncan, Garnett, Dirk, Bosh, Amare) and he was lumped in with guys like Carlos Boozer, Antwan Jamison and David West (good players, but fringe All-Stars year in and year out). However, since he was traded to the Lakers, it seems that his value has almost doubled. Not only is he widely considered to be the superior player over guys like Chris Bosh and Amare Stoudemire, but I have read on different message boards that he is comparable to players like Dirk Nowtizki and is arugably the best power forward in the NBA right now. The funny thing is that Pau Gasol is really not that different of a player from his days in Memphis. Sure, he is a better defender than he was in Memphis (not by much though) and he has been rebounding the ball better this season than he has throughout his career, but he is still basically the exact same player that he was in Memphis. His post game, passing, jump shot, basketball IQ and basically everything aside from his slight improvement in defense and rebounding is the exact same as it was in Memphis, yet he is now considered to be arguably the best power forward in the game today, or at the very least, undoubtedly top 4. The only thing that has changed about Gasol is that he now plays for one of the elite teams in the NBA, arguably the most storied franchise in NBA history and in probably the biggest market and most popular franchise in the league. So that begs the question, how much does the market that you play in and the team that you play on effect your value? PS: This thread isn't specifically designed to talk only about Pau Gasol. I just used him as an example as he was the first player that came to my head that fit this thread idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingfish Posted December 21, 2009 Report Share Posted December 21, 2009 He won a championship as a 2nd option all star, putting up fantastic numbers in each postseason round. Not to mention the work he did on Dwight Howard. Criticize him if you want but there is a reason he has a ring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Built Ford Tough Posted December 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 21, 2009 (edited) He won a championship as a 2nd option all star, putting up fantastic numbers in each postseason round. Not to mention the work he did on Dwight Howard. Criticize him if you want but there is a reason he has a ring. Way to completely miss the point of the thread. I knew that I shouldn't have used Gasol as an example. And how the [expletive] am I criticizing him? You get so damn defensive every single time somebody mentions the Lakers. Its cute, really. Edited December 21, 2009 by Built Ford Tough Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Penny Posted December 21, 2009 Report Share Posted December 21, 2009 well, if theyre in a bigger market, then they will have a bigger fanbase, leading to more people noticing their talent. befor Pau came to the lakers i knew him as "the guy who was rated pretty high on 2K8." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Artesticle Posted December 21, 2009 Report Share Posted December 21, 2009 Compare Gasol defensively last year in the Finals to the Gasol two years ago against Boston. His defense didn't improve "slightly," it improved tremendously. He really did a great job manning up to Dwight Howard. That being said, he is a good 2nd option, but I do not envision any team going far with him as the 1st option. That's why guys like Duncan and Dirk are ranked ahead of him (and a healthy KG because of his defensive presence alone). I'd probably rank him the 4th best PF in the league. IQ wise, he is one of the smartest players in the league (he understood the triangle better than LO his very first game when LO has been a Laker, for what, 4 years?). He is a great passer for his size, and playing with Kobe has made him a tougher, and better player. Coming to LA and playing with someone like Kobe really helped open up his game and helped him show his skills to the world because teams no longer focused all their attention on him. As for whether or not the market dictates a player's value? I think if you play in a bigger market, you certainly get more attention (take a look at Bynum vs Brook Lopez for an example). But if you're a great player, people will recognize it no matter what. Is Cleveland a big market? No, but many believe Lebron is the best player in the league. Is Minnesota a big market? No, but KG has always been highly regarded his entire career. Is San Antonio a big market? No, but Duncan is considered probably the best PF of all time. A bigger market helps players get more attention, but at the end of the day, their play is what's most important. Pau never was, and never will be a good 1st option. But playing 2nd fiddle? He's perfect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATL Posted December 21, 2009 Report Share Posted December 21, 2009 I think it affects it a lot. I think Rondo in a certain extent is a good example. Rondo is touted as one of the best point guards in the NBA, and winning with the Celtics definitely boosted his place in the ranks of the best point guards in the league. I'm not trying to diss Rondo (I think? ) but I don't see how some people call him better than Devin Harris. I think if you switch the two players, Rondo wouldn't be ranked as high and Devin Harris would be a top 3 point guard in the NBA. But again, this is just an example. You can't blame the fans though, because some teams are just more marketed than other teams and that makes the players on the more marketed team more recognizable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingfish Posted December 21, 2009 Report Share Posted December 21, 2009 Way to completely miss the point of the thread. I knew that I shouldn't have used Gasol as an example. And how the [expletive] am I criticizing him? You get so damn defensive every single time somebody mentions the Lakers. Its cute, really.I never said you specifically criticized him. So really you're the one being defensive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Check my Stats Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 Market and team success plays way too much of a factor. If Bosh was a second option on a better team, like has happened to Pau, this makes him a better player? I simply fail to see the logic in that. Pau took less of a role and this makes him a better player, hmmm. Anyways on the to topic at hand, I think market and team success is HUGE, I mean if Bosh goes to NY they will overrate him disgustingly, he will instantly become an undisputed top big man. If he averages 18-12 and his team wins a title he is a better player? Making statistical sacrifices makes you a better player? If anything the player who is the only option on his team and still manages to produce amazing stats and lead his team to a decent amount of success, is the best type of player. Sorry again for turning this into a Pau issue, but going from the first option to a second option on a top team has made him better in everyone's eyes, it is simply absurd. Bosh is better than Pau Gasol is, but neither are capable of being the best player on a championship team IMO. Btw I am only mentioning Bosh because I am not familiar with anyone else who would become more highly touted on a better team/bigger market. It is like when people say VC isn't a winner when he has had like 3 seasons in his entire career with a chance to make a decent run, but has never been on a title team. Same with LeBron, whether you like it or not he has never had a championship cast and pretty soon if he doesn't win a title people are gonna hold his lack of a title against him instead of management. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 Same goes for Shannon Brown. He was always a good dunker and athletic, but never got an invite to the dunk contest. Now that he plays for the Lakers and people can actually notice when he does a crazy dunk, he's gonna be in the dunk contest. Last year, Anthony Morrow led the league in 3-point shooting, but didn't get invited to the contest because he plays for a small market. If he played for a more popular team, he probably would have been in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Check my Stats Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 (edited) Shannon Brown is a perfect example. I wish I could think of more examples outside of the Lakers, but playing with great players makes you look better I suppose. Rondo is a great example as well like mentioned earlier, he is good but I still feel like his game is so incomplete. Meanwhile guys who are beasting on inferior teams are consistently overlooked. Playing on a good team really helps cover up your weaknesses, I mean I wonder how many people would call Pau a championship big man if he was still averaging 21-9 on the Grizzlies. Edited December 22, 2009 by travesy3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Artesticle Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 (edited) Market and team success plays way too much of a factor. If Bosh was a second option on a better team, like has happened to Pau, this makes him a better player? I simply fail to see the logic in that. Pau took less of a role and this makes him a better player, hmmm. He took less of a role so he has more opportunities to show off his skills. I don't know if that makes sense, but as the primary option in Memphis, he was who the opposing defenses focused on the most. Here in LA, playing with Kobe, he has less to worry about because defenses will focus their attention elsewhere. Thus making him more effective as a second option, he has the ability to do more because there is less attention focused on him. Pau Gasol is a better player now then he was in Memphis simply because he is a better player. The Pau Gasol from last year was a different Pau Gasol from two years ago, when he was first traded to the Lakers. After getting punked and rocked in the Finals, he finally decided to hit the weights and gained muscle in the offseason. Playing with Kobe every single day and feeding off his intensity and work ethic just made him a better player. Plain and simple. Just ask any Laker fan out there and they'd tell you that Pau has grown as a player ever since he was traded here. I don't recall too many people saying Pau is one of the top players in the league after the 2007-2008 season. But he got more acclaim and praise after the 2008-2009 season simply because he got better. Simply because he grew a pair of balls and held his ground against the best center in the league and made major contributions throughout the postseason and Finals. As for the Shannon Brown example, I can say the same for Trevor Ariza. Sometimes, the situation just needs to be right for a player to blossom. Trevor was just an after thought in New York and Orlando. Orlando traded him for scraps. He came to LA as just another "athletic swing man who can dunk" (like Shannon Brown). But he fit the system, worked hard, and as a result became one of the biggest reasons why we won the title last year. Same with Shannon. Shannon didn't have a position in the league, he's a cross between a 1 and a 2. In Cleveland, they preferred Daniel Gibson and Shannon never got the minutes. He got traded to Chicago, nothing. To Charlotte, nothing much. Then he comes to LA and his combo guard type game fits the system perfectly. As a result, he got the minutes and the vote of confidence to play his game and succeed. That could've happened in Cleveland, Chicago, or Charlotte, if they used him a certain way and gave him minutes. More minutes and playing time = more dunks and highlights, which is why he is more known. Him being auditioned in the dunk contest doesn't mean much. If he was making those dunks back with Cleveland, Chicago, or Charlotte he would be in the discussion as well, but he never had the opportunity. I certainly think the market of the team plays into how much attention a certain player will get, but it doesn't determine how great a player is. Like I said before, was Kevin Garnett any less of a player than he is today just because he spent so many years in Minnesota? He was always highly regarded. Is Tim Duncan underrated because he plays for San Antonio? I hear people argue he is the player of the decade, the best PF to ever play the game, so obviously not. Is Lebron underrated just because he plays for Cleveland? Considering so many people think he's the greatest player since Jordan, absolutely not. Chauncey Billups played in four different cities before coming to Detroit and becoming one of the most dangerous PGs in the game. Is it because Detroit is a big market? Not really, it's because his game improved and he finally found a team to fit him (just like Trevor and Shannon). In Bosh and Gasol's cases, neither are true franchise players. And like you said, Chris Bosh should be a 2nd option, not a 1st. Maybe if he played for New York he would get more attention than he's currently getting in Toronto. But would that make him a better player? I doubt it. The market doesn't determine how good you are, if you are a great player, you will be known as a great player. Vince Carter played in Toronto as well and was a franchise player (in his prime and when he tried), and he was one of the most popular players in the league a couple of years ago, playing in the same city as Chris Bosh. Anyways, just my personal opinion. Market doesn't determine how great of a player you are, there are plenty of examples of great players from small markets, who are appreciated for their skill. Edited December 22, 2009 by Willie Green 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Penny Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 Same goes for Shannon Brown. He was always a good dunker and athletic, but never got an invite to the dunk contest. Now that he plays for the Lakers and people can actually notice when he does a crazy dunk, he's gonna be in the dunk contest.its also partly due to the fact that he barely played at all. for his career he has 11.7 minutes... so far this season hes on 17.7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poe Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 It's just attention. Right now, Kevin Durant doesn't get as much attention as, say, LeBron and Kobe, although he is clearly headed right in the direction of becoming at their level. It's the fact that he isn't on a winning team, or a team with a particularly large fanbase outside of Oklahoma. Once this team starts winning and starts making noise in the playoffs, you'll start to see more highlight plays on TV, his team's games will be broadcasted more often, and announcers, sportswriters, NBA analysts, etcs will start talking about him more, and thus he'll get a larger fanbase, and then you'll start hearing about him as being one of the NBA's top players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 It's just attention. Right now, Kevin Durant doesn't get as much attention as, say, LeBron and Kobe, although he is clearly headed right in the direction of becoming at their level. It's the fact that he isn't on a winning team, or a team with a particularly large fanbase outside of Oklahoma. Once this team starts winning and starts making noise in the playoffs, you'll start to see more highlight plays on TV, his team's games will be broadcasted more often, and announcers, sportswriters, NBA analysts, etcs will start talking about him more, and thus he'll get a larger fanbase, and then you'll start hearing about him as being one of the NBA's top players.Many people already consider him one of the top players in the league. Maybe if he was in a bigger market, he would be considered in the same league as Bryant, James, Anthony and Wade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Force Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 Winning, means national attention, which makes people actually recognize that players attributes and I guess start overrating them a bit.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Artesticle Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 But Durant is already being given MVP consideration. That's putting him up there with the Kobes/Lebrons/Wades/Carmelos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
His Greatness Posted December 23, 2009 Report Share Posted December 23, 2009 (edited) The market should have absolutely no influence when evaluating players; they have no control over that, whereas winning should be weighted in, but to a point. Is that player contributing a maximum effort, and how conducive is it to winning? How integral is that player to his team's success? Would that player have achieved this much if not for his supporting cast? These types of probing questions should always be asked. Edited December 23, 2009 by His Greatness Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bravenewworld Posted December 23, 2009 Report Share Posted December 23, 2009 (edited) "How much does winning and the market that the player plays in effect how you value that player when it comes to rankings and what not?" Winning has a lot for me. I will always recognize a good or great player that is on a team with a losing record, but i have a hard time comparing those players to the already great players on teams with winning records. In todays NBA it is actually really hard to compose a team that should NOT be a play-off team and from what i have seen it usually comes down to the lack of leadership placed on that teams leaders. Pacers, Wizards, Memphis, Clippers are perfect example of this. According to these teams rosters, not one of them should be out of the play offs, yet year after year we see these guys keep the same basic leaders and continue to fail.I want to post more but im very tired and i need sleep. Edited December 23, 2009 by bravenewworld Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.