[orangedays]

Originally Posted by Dtownsfinest

Just curious but who do you believe in the NBA right now makes their teammates better than they currently are?

I know this was directed at jthig but I'll field it. Right off the top of my head, I'd say the two easiest calls are Steve Nash and Jason Kidd (and Shaq but I mentioned him earlier). Think about the rosters that these players have been successful with - now replace either player with say...Stephon Marbury. Are those teams as successful? Marbury's offensive numbers compare quite favorably with both players but he falls far short in his ability to 'make his teammates' better (the results are pretty clear when you compare...well, every team Marbury has ever been on with the recent Nets or Suns teams in terms of wins).

I'm not disagreeing with this statement. I do agree that the presence of a superstar makes life easier but I don't think its what makes Bruce Bowen the defender he is. I don't think Doug Christie was a 1st team defender because of Chris Webber and Vlade Divac's.

That's true. His absolute abilities as a defender are the direct result of two things: his talent and his hard work. I think you're taking too literally what it means to 'make teammates better'. It doesn't mean taking a Brian Scalabrine and turning him into an All-Star - what it means is taking an average player (say, Raja Bell) and turning him into an effective and consistent contributor - more so than he ever would be away from the 'player who makes others better'. Or, in Kidd's case - taking two above average players (Richard Jefferson and Kenyon Martin) and turning them into top-20 (or maybe even top-15) in the league at their respective positions (and we've seen the drop-off with Martin once he left that system). More importantly - it's the wins that these players are able to generate with the teams they spearhead. How else are we to account for teams with less talent winning more games than teams with comparable or superior talent? Yes, we can attribute this sort of success, in part, to coaching. But it is also because of players like Nash and Kidd (and Shaq and Dirk, etc.) that lesser-talented players are able to 'execute' and perform more effectively than more-talented players.

I honestly feel if ATL had Joe Johnson at the time JET's field goal shooting would be a lot higher. The fact that he played with no outside threats in ATL is what lead to his shooting percentage. I just think the argument of making teammates better is overrated. Yes, there are players who make teammates life in the NBA easier but I don't think there's a guy out there that makes a average 20 minute per game player into a all star. I just don't see it. I think Nash deserves credit for setting his teammates up in Phoenix and making the life of Boris Diaw easier but I think i'll give Eddie House, Boris Diaw and Raja Bell more credit than Nash.

Let's not forget that in 02-03 the Hawks had Glenn Robinson and Shareef Abdur-Rahim, with both averaging around 20 ppg on relatively efficient shooting (Robinson's numbers aren't that much worse than what JJ is putting up this season). But the Hawks were still a bad team and Terry shot 42.8% from the field and 34.7% from three. The reason why people glorify the act of 'making teammates better' is because it is something that occurs regardless of the talent you are given to work with.

See I just don't see that as making a player better. I see that as giving Damon Jones more opportunity's to get open looks and to make more shots but it doesn't make him a better player.

Again, I think you're taking the phrase too literally. I think your frustration stems from other people mis-using the phrase. What you stated here is exactly what it means to 'make a teammate' better. It doesn't mean that Shaq worked with Damon Jones to improve his jump shot - it means that being on a team with Shaq makes the game easier to play and thusly, makes Jones a more effective (and better) player.