Role player or All star

[PaperChasing59]

I have a question is a role player who can fit an important role on a championship level team actually a better player than an all star who has to be the man on his team but is not necessarily good enough to win a championship leading his team? The role player can play in multiple systems and contribute because of there intangibles and hard play as opposed to certain players who are all stars but can't excel the way they want because either they need to be the man but wont win or if they do play with a all star they don't mesh well and don't contribute and end up being seen as overrated. An example would be would you rather have excellent role players like Michael Cooper or a Charles Oakley just for example sake or have a player who people consider a so called all star player like a Danny Granger or someone people find overrated that can't lead a team to the championship because they cant lead on there own or cant play with another star player. Don't mean to single these players out but using them as examples. I'm asking what type of player would you rather have because I feel role players can be undervalued and may even be better than some so called all stars when it comes to a 5 on 5 game not necessarily 1 on 1. I mean the whole point is to win games right? So if a person with less skill leads to more wins, while the other person is just a scorer but can't mesh well with others, who is actually the better ball player?

[The15thunter]

so, you're asking if robert horry, for example, is better than charles barkley or karl malone? or do you mean better than someone who is more talented and produces good numbers, but isn't a winner, like vince carter?

[ojandpizza]

Danny Granger was a poor example, he's not at the super star level of a LeBron or Kobe or Durant to carry a team alone, but he is an all star an excellent teammate, works hard, and has continued to improve over his career.. Until now he's never been fortunate enough to have any sort of help from teammates or been in a situation to accomplish much.. I believe he was the only player to ever increase his scoring numbers by 5 PPG in each of his first 4 seasons in the league, that alone shows you how much he's willing to improve and become that go to guy..

Throwing him under the bus with guys who can't mesh well with other guys or is a bad teammate is harsh..

[PaperChasing59]

Quote: Originally Posted by The15thunter

so, you're asking if robert horry, for example, is better than charles barkley or karl malone? or do you mean better than someone who is more talented and produces good numbers, but isn't a winner, like vince carter?

I meant more so a player probably like Vince Carter who may be talented but is not considered a winner and never made it far leading teams, because both Barkley and Malone led teams to the finals and were MVPs. Barkley and Malone came close they both just lost to Jordan in the finals if that's a vailid excuse. That said even some people would say that they are still not winners and could not win. They didn't do it leading teams in there respective primes or later in there career when they teamed up with other all-star players, Barkley in Houston or Malone in L.A.

I guess its how you look at it because I meant more fringe, on the brink all stars who cant mesh with others rather than Hall of Famers, examples may be a Stephon Marbury or Steve Francis or even Vince Carter. Players who don't have a title and were seen as bad leaders, but if a case can be made that even some hall of famers can't win then yes I ask if the role players are actually better in a 5 on 5 game?

Remember basketball is a team sport and the ultimate goal is to win a championship. Sounds crazy but just for argument sake how do you guys feel? I definitely feel that top notched all stars like Barkley and Malone are better but when you think about it a case can be made if you feel they are overrated.. Would Rodman be a better player to have on a team trying to win? I mean he's not the scorer of the two mentioned above but he did do things that they wouldn't to win games some will say and he did win championships on the bulls and pistons. While Barkley failed in Philadelphia, Phoenix, and when he tried to capture a late one with Pippen and Olujawon in Houston. I ask and I know it sounds crazy but is there a point to this, are some all stars overrated or even Hall of famers because that wasn't my original question really with the Hall of Famers but if you want to bring up that point I guess it can be asked as well.

What do you think? I really want to concentrate on fringe all stars being better or not than solid role players depending on your opinion, not necessarily comparing them to hall of famers. The reason being is because I know what people will say, but if you feel a Hall of Famers is overrated in the sense that they can't lead to wins state your case.

[PaperChasing59]

Quote: Originally Posted by ojandpizza

Danny Granger was a poor example, he's not at the super star level of a LeBron or Kobe or Durant to carry a team alone, but he is an all star an excellent teammate, works hard, and has continued to improve over his career.. Until now he's never been fortunate enough to have any sort of help from teammates or been in a situation to accomplish much.. I believe he was the only player to ever increase his scoring numbers by 5 PPG in each of his first 4 seasons in the league, that alone shows you how much he's willing to improve and become that go to guy.. Throwing him under the bus with guys who can't mesh well with other guys or is a bad teammate is harsh..

Yeah he is a bad example but I just used him as a way to throw a name out there because maybe he is not a super star like some thought he would be but he does mesh well with people on his team. It was more so me using a bad example to get a point across, didn't mean to throw him under the bus.

[The 24th Letter]

Not trying to be funny, but are paragraphs disabled again? I know this happened one time before when Tapatalk had an upgrade. I can hardly keep track of what you are saying OP.

[AlexBrady]

The prototypical role player doesn't need the ball to make a tremendous impact on the game. These guys will box out, fill the lane, set screens, defend, and keep the ball moving. In todays game, players totally disregard this necessity because balltime=stats=money.

Who were the best role players of all time? Bill Russell, John Havlicek, Scottie Pippen, Dave DeBusschere, Dennis Rodman and Bobby Jones rate at the top.

[ojandpizza]

^ I don't think he was considering all star and super star level players as a "role-player"

To me there is no way Bill Russell and Scottie Pippen can be considered role players.. Though he wasn't the first scoring option Pippen was a multiple all star, a sidekick to Jordan and even had his shot at leading the team alone when Jordan left.. And Russell, while he had some role-player like tendsncies about his game, was always the captain of that celtics team.. I don't think you can be your team leader or captain, much less the best player and be considered a "role-player"