Post: #1

Your thoughts on these words:

Quote:Chris Bosh adjusted to being a complementary star since signing with the Miami Heat in 2010 and is adamant that he at peace not being the primary star like he was with the Toronto Raptors.

"Maturity-wise, I've let (being the No. 1 option) go," Bosh said. "I've let being the man go. I understand really in mainstream why and how people are infatuated with that area, but it's difficult man.

"I'm over it. It's just all about winning at the end of the day. It's about being in the game. I mean everybody isn't meant to take the last shot. Everybody isn't going to be the MVP. It's only for a very, very small percentage, for a small percentage of guys. I understand that, and I'm just lucky enough to be in this situation I am now, just competing at the highest level in the league. That's good enough for me."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba...y/5535363/

Post: #2

A suggestion:

We have an NBA thread. You would get more replies/interest if you posted it there.

The NBA Thread

Post: #3

Misleading title. Nowhere in the article did he say he was "not good enough", just that he was OK being that third option role(which he should be) on a team with two other superstars. Looking back, his Toronto teams were never particularly successful when he was "the guy", but thats for a myriad of reasons you could say. Mind you DWade, also said he would take a backseat to LeBron and caught no flak for it because they started winning championships immediately after.

Post: #4

I think this thread title is a misrepresentation of his comments. He sounds pretty wise to me, and he's got two championships to show for it, with the potential for more. That's two more than he would have had if he insisted on playing where he could be 'the man'.

Post: #5

My thoughts are...he's right. He's a very talented player, with unique skills for a man his height. In Toronto, on a middle-of-the-road team, that translated to being the star of that team. But his game truly is complementary in nature. And it's hard for big men to be true star/leaders, because they are largely dependent on others getting them the ball. MOST don't create for themselves. I think Bosh has shrunken a bit TOO small though. He's turned into a 6'11" jump shooter, and he's capable of more. If he was a bit more assertive, it would be difficult for any team to handle the Heat. Even though they've been to 3 straight finals, they've had their backs to the wall a bit along the way. With Bosh playing at a higher level and attacking more, they'd be giving all of the headaches.

Post: #6

I think at that level of the game you should have the mind set of being the best. If you think of yourself as second rate your game is gonna suffer. Confidence is huge in sports. I feel like if you aren't working towards being the #1 player on the team your not really improving much.

Its really amazing how much your mind set can affect your game. I was never great at basketball. I was pretty good and a good guy to have on the team, but nothing spectacular. One day I was shooting hoops by myself at the park and this guy I didn't really like showed up. We didn't have any real beef he just ended up dating one of my side pieces and there was a little drama between us. I asked him if he wanted to play one and one and he said yes. An in my mind I was like I am gonna embarrass this guy, fuck him. I have never had a game like that one in my life, I was hitting everything I threw up. Mad 3's which I was never that good (I was more of a post player) Playing 21 I had 18 and went to the corner said "game" threw a shot up and walked off the court to my car without even watching the shot. I was so cindfident and in this mindset I never been in and never was in for a game of basketball again. I think star athletes of many sport are able to tap into that mind set everytime they play.

Its like Muhammad Ali. He believed he was the baddest man on and ended up being that.

Post: #7

I think the difference is that Ali actually WAS the baddest man though, or at least top few, but Bosh isn't and can't be.

Post: #8

Chris Bosh is what he is- a solid 2nd or 3rd banana on a good team. If Chris Bosh is your teams best player- your team is going nowhere.

Post: #9

Guys like him are very valuable actually- the ones who accept that role. Jamal Crawford was a classic case of a guy with role player ability but thought he was a super star so he took way too many shots. If you replaced Bosh with Carmelo Anthony ( a guy with more talent but can't be a role player) the team would be much worse.

Post: #10

(02-21-2014 09:50 AM)RioNomad Wrote:  I think the difference is that Ali actually WAS the baddest man though, or at least top few, but Bosh isn't and can't be.

True..I guess after a few years of playing with Lebron James reality smacks you in the face.

Post: #11

He's playing great this year and could easily get good money from another team if he so chooses. Plus if you look at his career averages he is putting up Hall of Fame type numbers. This "Lesser" role is getting him rings and will likely get him into the Hall of Fame once his career is done also. Everybody likes to be that guy but sometimes your better being a compliment then a focal point. They wouldn't have those rings without him, he came up at critical times during both those title runs.

Post: #12

I think this is prudent. One of the worst flaws to have in the NBA is not having the talent but thinking you do. See: Rudy Gay.

One of the best qualities in a player is knowing your limitations and abilities. Bosh is a great player who can help any team win a title. He doesn't do more than he should, and when he was in toronto, being the star translated into less than efficient offensive performances.

Another player who comes to mind is Iguoudala.

Post: #13

(02-22-2014 06:07 AM)SHANbangs Wrote:  I think this is prudent. One of the worst flaws to have in the NBA is not having the talent but thinking you do. See: Rudy Gay.

One of the best qualities in a player is knowing your limitations and abilities. Bosh is a great player who can help any team win a title. He doesn't do more than he should, and when he was in toronto, being the star translated into less than efficient offensive performances.

Another player who comes to mind is Iguoudala.

It's not true that Rudy Gay doesn't have talent. I think Gay's issues are between the ears. It was true in college, as well as now in the NBA. The knock on him coming out was that he disappeared at times. Some guys don't have the assertive mindset consistently. Joe Johnson is another one of those guys. He's got star talent, but not a #1, go-to guy mindset. Every now and then he'll dazzle you, then he shrinks back. Charles Barkley used to say it on TNT all the time when he was in Atlanta - that if Joe Johnson is your star, you have a problem. He carries a #2, or even #3 mindset.

Post: #14

Timoteo, are there guys who have it between the ears but are lacking on talent? Give me some examples, please.

Post: #15

Theres a few guys that are very good, but not very athletic and beat guys with smarts and/or skill:

• Roy Hibbert
• Andre Miller
• Zach Randolph
• Luis Scola
• Greg Monroe
• Marc Gasol
• Glen Davis
• Brook Lopez
• Ryan Anderson
• Al Jefferson
  

Post: #16

(02-21-2014 12:16 PM)kosko Wrote:  ...if you look at his career averages he is putting up Hall of Fame type numbers. This "Lesser" role is getting him rings and will likely get him into the Hall of Fame once his career is done also...

That is exactly how James Worthy got himself in the HOF and a bunch of rings.

Post: #17

Chris has done an amazing job with what they need him to do. If you watched them in the 2010-2011 season, there was really less of a team effort, especially in the finals. There were all these parts on the team, but nobody really knew when or where to do what was needed. We were still trying to play with a traditional center (Anthony, Ilgauskas). Wade was still extremely healthy and thought he was the team leader. LBJ wasn't sure of what his role was going to be, but over the summer after losing to the Mavericks two main changes happened on this team:

-Lebron developed his post game more, and distanced himself from jump shooting at such a high volumn
-Spoelstra made sure that Lebron was the #1 guy on this team. It's the only way for them to be successful.

After this, CB had to become a role player. He would have to take over a lot of "traditional" big man responsibilities, while also being able to "space-n-pace." He's doing exactly what we need him to do. Even now, when we go with birdman-bosh lineups, or even oden-bosh lineups, he still shows flairs of that all-star toronto PF that he used to be. The difference is that it's only in small times when we need him, not all the time.

Post: #18

I recall reading an SI piece about Andre Iguoudala when he was still in Philly. The issue with him is that he's really not an offensive player - he's a defender. He's a great athlete for a man his size, and he gets his points from his defense and being a matchup problem for opponents. He was the Sixers' best player by default. He didn't necessarily want the title, and it was obvious to most that he shouldn't have been in the positon of being offensive option #1. He more wanted to fill the stat sheet in a number of categories, but didn't have the game or mindset to be leading scorer most nights.

If you look at the kind of players that become coaches, it's usually not stars - it's secondary players. They've always had to look at the game more analytically, and studied other players to find weaknesses to exploit. Stars are usually good enough to simply play - they don't worry so much about what their opponent is going to do. The opponent has to be more concerned about them. Many don't translate to being good coaches because the game in many respects was easy for them, so they aren't particularly good teachers, and have low tolerance for mistakes or failures in others.

Post: #19

(02-22-2014 10:41 AM)Moma Wrote:  Timoteo, are there guys who have it between the ears but are lacking on talent? Give me some examples, please.

There are a bunch of "glue" guys around the league. Guys like Shane Battier, especially when he was more in his prime. He's a defender/rebounder, and occasional spot-up shooter. He's incredibly intelligent, but doesn't have the overall game to be a star. Despite his college credentials, he knew this from the beginning and became the kind of player that would do the grimy stuff needed for his teams to win. iWin named a bunch of guys that fit that mold. Guys like Dennis Rodman, despite the outward weirdness, was very bright in terms of how he studied the game. He knew he had certain limitations, and crafted a role that he became the best at. Tyson Chandler did the same thing - essentially becoming a 7-foot Rodman. He came into the league out of high school without a big-man's game. He didn't play with his back to the basket in high school. He succeeded mainly because he was taller and more athletic than his competition. No one worked with him in Chicago, so he floundered. He realized he couldn't succeed as the prototypical low-post center - he had to be something else. So he became a hustler, crashing the offensive boards and being an anchor/rim protector on defense. He helped the Mavs get a ring, and then a Defensive Player of the Year with the Knicks.

Post: #20

@Timoteo

Good points, but IMO Tyson Chandler just needed more time to develop. Centers need more time than guards and forwards to learn the skills required for NBA level play.

Post: #21

(02-22-2014 07:49 PM)redbeard Wrote:  @Timoteo

Good points, but IMO Tyson Chandler just needed more time to develop. Centers need more time than guards and forwards to learn the skills required for NBA level play.

I always thought that the transition to being a good centre was easier. Guards have to be much more cerebral i.e orchestrating the offense and knowing how to get the ball or spacing etc so isn't that a steeper learning curve?

Post: #22

Quote:I recall reading an SI piece about Andre Iguoudala when he was still in Philly. The issue with him is that he's really not an offensive player - he's a defender. He's a great athlete for a man his size, and he gets his points from his defense and being a matchup problem for opponents. He was the Sixers' best player by default. He didn't necessarily want the title, and it was obvious to most that he shouldn't have been in the positon of being offensive option #1. He more wanted to fill the stat sheet in a number of categories, but didn't have the game or mindset to be leading scorer most nights.

Yeah, Iggy is what I liken to the basketball equivalent of a Swiss army knife. He can do a little of everything: score, rebound, assist, strap up on D, and make all the intangible plays. I think people look back to his Philly days where he averaged about 19-20 ppg from the years of 06-09 and think that he should've blown up, but I don't think his identity was ever that of a superstar. If you look at how he played in high school and at Arizona it's essentially the same, except he is much better shooting the trey ball now.Those Philly teams had literally no talent so his usage rate and numbers were inflated since he was literally the only guy that could make anything happen consistently. Evan Turner(who just got traded from the Sixers) is also alot like this, where is numbers are inflated due to his high usage role and terrible surrounding cast.

Quote:Tyson Chandler did the same thing - essentially becoming a 7-foot Rodman. He came into the league out of high school without a big-man's game. He didn't play with his back to the basket in high school. He succeeded mainly because he was taller and more athletic than his competition. No one worked with him in Chicago, so he floundered. He realized he couldn't succeed as the prototypical low-post center - he had to be something else. So he became a hustler, crashing the offensive boards and being an anchor/rim protector on defense. He helped the Mavs get a ring, and then a Defensive Player of the Year with the Knicks.

Tyson is interesting because he had Lebron-like hype in his amateur days. There wasn't an NBA scout that didn't have his name and address memorized and he was also featured on 60 Minutes as a 14-year old from Dominguez High School in Compton. His problem early on was that he was too talented for his own good, meaning he never focused on anything. He toyed around with the perimeter in high school and had many thinking he would be a SF, but that quickly got squashed when he got to the league. His skillset took awhile to develop, and he also had to come to terms with what he did best. This is something that alot of people don't really consider when talking about a player's success in the league. There's so many factors like a players mental state, the system of the team they get drafted too, the coaches and front office commitment, and of course actually having talent and skill in the first place. Tyson as one of those guys that could've easily been a huge bust because he didn't want to adjust his role and expectations of what he thought he should be, but he tempered both and eventually prospered.

Post: #23

(02-22-2014 08:51 PM)iWin Wrote:  

Quote:I recall reading an SI piece about Andre Iguoudala when he was still in Philly. The issue with him is that he's really not an offensive player - he's a defender. He's a great athlete for a man his size, and he gets his points from his defense and being a matchup problem for opponents. He was the Sixers' best player by default. He didn't necessarily want the title, and it was obvious to most that he shouldn't have been in the positon of being offensive option #1. He more wanted to fill the stat sheet in a number of categories, but didn't have the game or mindset to be leading scorer most nights.

Yeah, Iggy is what I liken to the basketball equivalent of a Swiss army knife. He can do a little of everything: score, rebound, assist, strap up on D, and make all the intangible plays. I think people look back to his Philly days where he averaged about 19-20 ppg from the years of 06-09 and think that he should've blown up, but I don't think his identity was ever that of a superstar. If you look at how he played in high school and at Arizona it's essentially the same, except he is much better shooting the trey ball now.Those Philly teams had literally no talent so his usage rate and numbers were inflated since he was literally the only guy that could make anything happen consistently. Evan Turner(who just got traded from the Sixers) is also alot like this, where is numbers are inflated due to his high usage role and terrible surrounding cast.

Quote:Tyson Chandler did the same thing - essentially becoming a 7-foot Rodman. He came into the league out of high school without a big-man's game. He didn't play with his back to the basket in high school. He succeeded mainly because he was taller and more athletic than his competition. No one worked with him in Chicago, so he floundered. He realized he couldn't succeed as the prototypical low-post center - he had to be something else. So he became a hustler, crashing the offensive boards and being an anchor/rim protector on defense. He helped the Mavs get a ring, and then a Defensive Player of the Year with the Knicks.

Tyson is interesting because he had Lebron-like hype in his amateur days. There wasn't an NBA scout that didn't have his name and address memorized and he was also featured on 60 Minutes as a 14-year old from Dominguez High School in Compton. His problem early on was that he was too talented for his own good, meaning he never focused on anything. He toyed around with the perimeter in high school and had many thinking he would be a SF, but that quickly got squashed when he got to the league. His skillset took awhile to develop, and he also had to come to terms with what he did best. This is something that alot of people don't really consider when talking about a player's success in the league. There's so many factors like a players mental state, the system of the team they get drafted too, the coaches and front office commitment, and of course actually having talent and skill in the first place. Tyson as one of those guys that could've easily been a huge bust because he didn't want to adjust his role and expectations of what he thought he should be, but he tempered both and eventually prospered.

Iggy is an underrated playmaker. I think his main issue on offense is 1) he's not a great shooter and 2) he doesn't have the attacking mindset. He has the athletic ability and ball handling to get to the rim at will. The issue is seeing the floor and opportunities from a slashing point of view. In contrast, westbrook gets to the basket at ease because he has that attacking instinct.

And to the previous points: I think Bosh DOES lack talent to be elite level ie. top 5-10 in the league because he can't really rebound that well. He's just not big or strong enough to really be a post up or box out threat. Some are asking why he's become a big man jump shooter, but really, ask yourself how many opportunities Bosh really gets to slash from an elbow or baseline? He's not going to get easy points from putbacks because he's not a rebounder, and he's not strong enough to get more back-to-the-basket points.

Rudy Gay also lacks the talent. He can't shoot. And he has the ability to get to the rim, but I think lacks the basketball sense to drive and slash at optimal times. That kind of instinct for finding the right offensive opportunity - that's talent too. So he ends up setting for jumpers that made toronto fans want to kill themselves.

Post: #24

Let me add to the list of players who have it between the ears but are not naturally gifted:

1. Aron Afflalo - can't shoot, doesn't have the attacking offensive awareness, but great defender and efficient with his opps.
2. Chauncey Billups - not very athletic but strong and big for a guard, did a lot of things that made his offensive game efficient, like drawing fouls easily and taking smart shots.
3. Ben Wallace - that man could not shoot for his life (not bad on alley-oops though).

In contrast, guys who are the opposite:
1. Demar Derozan
2. J.R. Smith!!!!!!!!!


Finally, guys who had both smarts and talent, but just lacked the drive to play hard:
RASHEEEEEED WALLLACE! Is there even a big man today with his kind of whole-package game? He could shoot, box out, post up, rebound, defend, good footwork, great eye for the pass. Good lord.

Post: #25

(02-22-2014 08:48 PM)Moma Wrote:  

(02-22-2014 07:49 PM)redbeard Wrote:  @Timoteo

Good points, but IMO Tyson Chandler just needed more time to develop. Centers need more time than guards and forwards to learn the skills required for NBA level play.

I always thought that the transition to being a good centre was easier. Guards have to be much more cerebral i.e orchestrating the offense and knowing how to get the ball or spacing etc so isn't that a steeper learning curve?

Eh, I don't have any stats behind it but I remember hearing a while back that the whole size thing is an issue. Anthony Davis is a great example. He was probably the tallest guy in high school, and could easily pick-and-pop the midrange while hitting dunks. Then he does his one year in college and is able to do the same thing. Then, he comes to the NBA, and has to face Roy Hibbert. His arsenal has to diversify and he has to physically grow into his body.