How does an NBA player make another guy on his team better?

[dada]

Its a fairly simple question and all I ask is your opinion of what it is about a player that leads you to believe they make their teammates better? Why do people believe Nash, Wade, Lebron Shaq and so forth are such players?

Also, does a player who has a career year due to more open shots and freedom on the court produced by these players (Nash and so forth) necessarily mean that he has gotten better?

If they have gotten better, then I would like to have a better understanding of why is it that when they leave their team to go elsewhere to play, they never seem to perform on par.


Anyways, just tell me what you think.

[cyanide]

Ball distribution, imo. If a team works together by passing around, including their superstar player making the passes or the extra pass, it makes the team better. If the superstar gets the ball and hesitates without thinking about making a pass but thinking about scoring, then it doesn't make the team better. For example, LeBron would be given two options in an instant: he would either pass or think about driving or shooting. With Kobe, it's 'I got the ball, I'm going to either shoot or drive. If I get screwed, I'll find somebody or make a turnover." Just an example

[dada]

Ball distribution, imo. If a team works together by passing around, including their superstar player making the passes or the extra pass, it makes the team better. If the superstar gets the ball and hesitates without thinking about making a pass but thinking about scoring, then it doesn't make the team better. For example, LeBron would be given two options in an instant: he would either pass or think about driving or shooting. With Kobe, it's 'I got the ball, I'm going to either shoot or drive. If I get screwed, I'll find somebody or make a turnover." Just an example

I understand how it makes the team better, but I am more wondering how he makes the individual guy better. He may pass him the ball in good spots to score more points, but how does it improve the individual player's skill-level if all he is doing is hitting more easy shots?

[MetalHead]

Well, in my opinion, its all about the personality, attitude and the way a player simply plays the game. Guys like Jordan give their teamates a lot of confidence and play both ends of the court, making big stops and making the tough shots when the clock wanes.

They also play to their teamates strengths. Example: Pippen and Odom both have similar game. And although Pippen was better overall, Odom has the base and the raw talent to be that great sidekick to Kobe. Jordan broke Pippen down and told him his strengths, his weaknesses, where he likes to shoot the ball, where he doesn't, and so forth. Pippen did likewise. Because of this, Jordan knew where to pass to Pippen where he was most consistent, and Pippen knew where to help Jordan when he was double, or triple teamed. Kobe? Well...Odom's numbers speak for themselves.

Anywho, no, a career year doesn't necessarily mean the player's gotten better, and yet, sometimes it does. Guys like Kobe are a mix of both. Kobe's skill has certainly improved, but he's taking a hell of a lot more shots.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and in the Western Semis right after Dallas was defeated, I remember Nowitzki talking about Nash's basketball IQ, and how his team lacked it.

Reporter: And how do you suppose you get this IQ?
Nowitzki: -silence-

[dada]

Firstly I would like to say that I am not really a big Odom fan and I dont see much similarity between him and Pippen besides the fact that they are both tall and skinny, but I will say this...

When I look at Odom in LA, I see a guy who has improved his fg%, become a more consistent rebounder, brought down his turnovers and is havind a good assists year compared to the rest of his career, all while scoring 2-3 points less than his best scoring season. I see somewhat of an improvement in those aspects. If he scored more I think people would say he has gotten better even if those aspects of his game went downbut why? Allaround he has made some improvement.

[cyanide]

but I am more wondering how he makes the individual guy better. He may pass him the ball in good spots to score more points, but how does it improve the individual player's skill-level if all he is doing is hitting more easy shots?

Ah, I see. I think it might just be a confidence booster. If he's getting his opportunities, he's willing to play harder, knowing he's part of a cohesive unit. If he's just standing around and watching the superstar try to score each and every time, he could become disinterested or disgrunted because he feels left out of the cohesive unit.

[maes]

Playing with intensity. Defensive play is either all or nothing. If you're out there and play hard, back-breaking D on a guy and force him to pass, and your teammate is just standing around picking his nose while his guy shoots an easy jumper, you're not going to play that kind of D much longer.

Getting the ball to teammates in situations & shots where they will succeed, knowing where your teammates like to get the ball & have a good amount of success, NOT just dumping the ball out because you get into trouble.

Early in his career Jordan's idea of "passing" was slashing into the lane, getting triple-teamed and then just dumping the ball because he didn't want it anymore & then get furious that his teammates couldn't hit that shot from some random place on court. That changed after a few years.

[dada]

Ah, I see. I think it might just be a confidence booster. If he's getting his opportunities, he's willing to play harder, knowing he's part of a cohesive unit. If he's just standing around and watching the superstar try to score each and every time, he could become disinterested or disgrunted because he feels left out of the cohesive unit.

I got you.
Now lets say you are playing with a superstar who doesnt give his teammates too many freebies/opportunities etc because he has no confidence in their skills. If a player on that team works hard and puts up decent numbers even if another player dominates the ball wouldnt that improve his skill slightly since he has to work harder to create the few opportunities he has for himself and also gain the confidence of the superstar?

PS: I am in no way saying its good to play with a selfish player. I am just dealing with individual skill levels.

[dada]

Early in his career Jordan's idea of "passing" was slashing into the lane, getting triple-teamed and then just dumping the ball because he didn't want it anymore & then get furious that his teammates couldn't hit that shot from some random place on court. That changed after a few years.

When you say that I think of Shaq. He sits down in the lane, when defenders come to help on him and has few options he passes out to his teamates. Not exactly the same but similar, yet he is considered a guy who improves his teammates but players like Kobe or Jordon (early years) who only passed in similar situations were said to not be helping to improve players. I dont really understand it much.

[cyanide]

Now lets say you are playing with a superstar who doesnt give his teammates too many freebies/opportunities etc because he has no confidence in their skills.

If that's the case, then that's a big problem. Players that are in the NBA are guys who have credibility to play in the NBA. If they don't have the skills, they wouldn't be in the NBA. They still need to develop, so it's important for superstars to have confidence in their teammates, because they're not going to win by themselves. True superstars utilize the strengths of each of their teammates.

If a player on that team works hard and puts up decent numbers even if another player dominates the ball wouldnt that improve his skill slightly since he has to work harder to create the few opportunities he has for himself and also gain the confidence of the superstar?

I still think the superstar should have confidence in the teammate in the first place rather than having to win the superstar's confidence. It's true that work ethic can overcome the lack of talent to be a good teammate. He can work his ass off and score garbage points while the superstar just shoots, but the guy can get pissed off at the superstar for not having confidence in him or get sick of not even getting passed the ball even when open which could just make him not care about the game. It's hard to set aside egos, but confidence and trust within teammates puts those egos aside temporarily.

[dada]

Now lets say you are playing with a superstar who doesnt give his teammates too many freebies/opportunities etc because he has no confidence in their skills.

If that's the case, then that's a big problem. Players that are in the NBA are guys who have credibility to play in the NBA. If they don't have the skills, they wouldn't be in the NBA. They still need to develop, so it's important for superstars to have confidence in their teammates, because they're not going to win by themselves. True superstars utilize the strengths of each of their teammates.

If a player on that team works hard and puts up decent numbers even if another player dominates the ball wouldnt that improve his skill slightly since he has to work harder to create the few opportunities he has for himself and also gain the confidence of the superstar?

I still think the superstar should have confidence in the teammate in the first place rather than having to win the superstar's confidence. It's true that work ethic can overcome the lack of talent to be a good teammate. He can work his ass off and score garbage points while the superstar just shoots, but the guy can get pissed off at the superstar for not having confidence in him or get sick of not even getting passed the ball even when open which could just make him not care about the game. It's hard to set aside egos, but confidence and trust within teammates puts those egos aside temporarily.

I understand how it helps the team and players morale, and I also am not trying to justify a player being selfish, but I am just trying to understand the part about improving just the individual player's skill, not the team unit.

I look at a player like Q-Rich who was decent in Phoenix and then expected to make some form of impact in New York but hasnt done anything. Last year it was said how Nash made this guy a better player but from the way he is performing this is not evident. How then did he become a better player?

[Fitzy]

Jason Kidds good at making players on his team better

[MetalHead]

They mean Nash made him a better player, but this only means when he was on the same court as him. You see, the minute Joe and Quentin left Phoenix, they statistically played much poorer.

Joe was .47 at the three in Phoenix, and now he's down to .34. Nash penetrates, kicks out to Joe he buries the three. Now, in Atlanta, Joe has to do it all by himself. Rebounds, and Field Goal Percentage down. Turnovers up.

Quentin was well...no explanation needed. 14.9 ppg to 7. nuff said.

Diaw is now at 11 ppg, after two years of staying at 4.5 ppg. Boards are up by 4 a game. Averages one more block a game, and three more steals.

Coincidence? Im not sure, but I think the Nash-factor had some influence.

[cyanide]

I look at a player like Q-Rich who was decent in Phoenix and then expected to make some form of impact in New York but hasnt done anything. Last year it was said how Nash made this guy a better player but from the way he is performing this is not evident. How then did he become a better player?

I'm not too clear which 'individual' you're referring to - the superstar or the teammate. In Q-Rich's case, he's a one-dimensional player and he thrived in Phoenix simply because Nash was able to create the open shot for Q-Rich to drain the three. It also has a lot to do with Mike d'Antoni's run and gun system that Q-Rich was in comfortable in.

Sometimes the teammate needs a superstar to create open shots for the teammate. Kobe has the skill to draw double teams and find open players, but he doesn't pass as often as he could.

[MetalHead]

I look at a player like Q-Rich who was decent in Phoenix and then expected to make some form of impact in New York but hasnt done anything. Last year it was said how Nash made this guy a better player but from the way he is performing this is not evident. How then did he become a better player?

I'm not too clear which 'individual' you're referring to - the superstar or the teammate. In Q-Rich's case, he's a one-dimensional player and he thrived in Phoenix simply because Nash was able to create the open shot for Q-Rich to drain the three. It also has a lot to do with Mike d'Antoni's run and gun system that Q-Rich was in comfortable in.

Sometimes the teammate needs a superstar to create open shots for the teammate. Kobe has the skill to draw double teams and find open players, but he doesn't pass as often as he could.

or sometimes he simply doesnt pass.

[dada]

They mean Nash made him a better player, but this only means when he was on the same court as him. You see, the minute Joe and Quentin left Phoenix, they statistically played much poorer.

Joe was .47 at the three in Phoenix, and now he's down to .34. Nash penetrates, kicks out to Joe he buries the three. Now, in Atlanta, Joe has to do it all by himself. Rebounds, and Field Goal Percentage down. Turnovers up.

Quentin was well...no explanation needed. 14.9 ppg to 7. nuff said.

Diaw is now at 11 ppg, after two years of staying at 4.5 ppg. Boards are up by 4 a game. Averages one more block a game, and three more steals.

Coincidence? Im not sure, but I think the Nash-factor had some influence.

So he wasnt a better player, he just hit more shots because he was wide open. Thats what I get.

I'm not too clear which 'individual' you're referring to - the superstar or the teammate.

The teammate.

[Andrew]

The great players know when to take over and when to defer. They know when to be a bit more selfish and when to be selfless. They're usually a big defensive draw, opening up opportunities for their teammates which they'll utilise. Consider some of the role players on great teams who become a little overrated because they get so many open looks because of a great offensive player who won't mind sharing.

And as cyanide said, there's the confidence they inspire. With such an awesome weapon at their disposal, the team's confidence and morale is generally boosted as a feeling of "as long as we have him and all do our part, we can win it all" spreads throughout the roster.

[dada]

Consider some of the role players on great teams who become a little overrated because they get so many open looks because of a great offensive player who won't mind sharing.

I highlighted the overrated because thats the part I find very important. I looked at lets say for example Joe Johnson's stats last year with Nash and felt that with him going to Atlanta, and the improvements he made in his game, he should have an awesome year. It hasnt exactly gone that way. Nash made the team work together alot better but did he really improve any aspect of Joe Johnson's overall game? I ask this because I look at a player like Wade who people think has improved greatly as a result of Shaq on his team but who I feel would have made huge leaps in his game regardless. A few times I am led to believe he doesnt play as good with Shaq on the floor.
Isnt it better to say players like Shaq or Nash makes the team play better together rather than say he makes players on his team better?


Or, I might just be a big blockhead.

I know most prefer the latter.

[Andrew]

Perhaps. It's more accurate to say they're made to look better because they're getting open looks and since attention is focused on them, any mistakes aren't quite as apparent while anything positive they can chip in here and there usually gets a small mention. In contrast, when you're talking about the best in the game their every step is scrutinized so when they mess up it's much bigger news.

So it's probably more accurate to say great players make their teammates look better by opening up opportunities for them, or help them to overachieve. Of course a player might improve offensively if he's playing with a great distributor and he's getting more scoring opportunities - the more you practice, the better you get. But he might falter a bit when he's not playing with that great playmaker. So I guess you could say it's smoke and mirrors stuff.

[magius]

i dont think superstars neccessarily make players better, but they understand the ebb and flow of a game and use it to their team's advantage, hence the team plays better which in turn leads us to believe that certain players are playing better (which they may or may not be... usually, one way or another, they are). just because a players numbers dip or stagnate in contrast to previous year it doesnt mean he's playing better or worse, you honestly have to watch a game.

in the end, what really determines the value of a player is what he contributes to his teams success. it is only logical that if a team is losing more than they win that the normal player doesnt have any chance of contributing to a success that does not exist. when a team is winning we ask no questions, when a team is not winning we have to ask - why? which inevitably leads us to the flaws that every player, whether winning or losing, has.

on the other hand, there are players who clearly boost the statistics of those playing around them, point guards being the most dominant of this specimen of player. simply put, for an nba player to make other players better = good decision making. know your teammates spots, know when to take over, know when to play off the ball, know when to pass, know where to pass. it doesnt surprise me that a kidd or nash will boost the stats of those playing around them (sometimes dramatically) because if your team runs through a guard you're team generally runs at a much faster pace.... none of this inside outside crap; pick, roll, screen, drive, dish, score. if your team runs through a big man you will always, in comparison, run at a slower pace. just because a nash or stockton averaged 11 apg, doesnt mean that they affect the game/teammates more than a shaq, olajowan, duncan or garnett. sometimes the assist that leads to an assist is more valuable.

but remember, we're only talking offensively here. bigs can dramatically make the players around them better defenders too, especially in todays less phsyical nba. having a post presence to funnel your guard into is the difference between life and death.

[maes]

Yeah i think it's just a misunderstanding of the term. When someone says a leader makes his teammates better, they mean he makes his teammates produce more even though his teammates are still the same.

Kidd with Carter is a good example. Carter is playing with intensity now, and it's more than just getting good looks off Kidd assists, Carter is playing better even unassisted. What's even more important, Carter has missed a total of ONE game in the 2 seasons as a Net, that's crazy. Sportswriters commented that Kidd has Carter playing through minor injuries that VC would normally take some time off for.

Now we know Kidd didn't do some surgery to fix Vince's knees or anything like that, he didn't make Vince permanently more durable. But he's influenced Vince in a lot of ways, and he's done that to a lot of players. K-Mart isn't nearly as impressive without Kidd, and he's no excuses, he has a great coach, great passing PG, and Camby guarding his back...he should be playing his best ball ever...but it's not the case.

[Axel]

Steve Nash is constantly moving, driving to the lane and working the baseline... he is a good shooter so he has to be guarded, and because of his ball handing he can get whever he wants on the court.. so obviously he makes it much easier for people to get open shots.

[Matthew]

Its a fairly simple question and all I ask is your opinion of what it is about a player that leads you to believe they make their teammates better? Why do people believe Nash, Wade, Lebron Shaq and so forth are such players?

Also, does a player who has a career year due to more open shots and freedom on the court produced by these players (Nash and so forth) necessarily mean that he has gotten better?

If they have gotten better, then I would like to have a better understanding of why is it that when they leave their team to go elsewhere to play, they never seem to perform on par.


Anyways, just tell me what you think.

It's when a player plays to his strengths. Do you think MJ would have made the bulls better in the final minute of game 6 in the 98 finals by passing the ball around? No of course not. He had to take control and do what he did best.

The same goes with any great scorer. You cant expect them to make a team better by being unselfish, becuase teams will begin to jump the passing lanes and create turnovers if you over pass.

[kinokong]

another way is playing stifling defense... a steal or a monster block when the team is sluggish is a great confidence and energy booster....

[point-guard]

why cant people just understand that lakers are alanta hawks without kobe?other than kobe.no one is consistent.i m not saying kobe is consistent every night.but at least he win games..i hate people saying that he did not make his team mates better..if thats the case..this is what should be in kobe's mind 'oh i have to pass the ball to kwame 'play like a sissy' brown or lamar 'not aggressive' odom or smush 'i can only dunk and score sometimes' parker....etc and play a team game,so that we can lose by 20 points'