Which would you prefer . . . .

[danglertx]

Team B can win in today's NBA.  Team A can't.  Teams will always miss some shots and if we are that smart and can shoot, we can get open corner threes and win.  Scoring is the name of the game and if you can't score, you can't win.

[Celtics4ever]

Trouble with the premise of this posts is that these two types of players are specialists not core players or player type.   One is Rodman and the other is Kerr but you still need a Jordan and Pippen, both great players both ways to win.

[PhoSita]

Trouble with the premise of this posts is that these two types of players are specialists not core players or player type.   One is Rodman and the other is Kerr but you still need a Jordan and Pippen, both great players both ways to win.

True enough.

But unless you're paying a lot of money in free agency or selecting high in the draft, you typically don't get the opportunity to acquire players who give you the best of both worlds.  So which type of player would you target first and foremost?  Build a team of athletic defenders and then find some high volume scorers to get you enough points to win, or the opposite?

[LooseCannon]

Neither?  Get me some good defenders who are more thuggish than athletic.

[BballTim]

Trouble with the premise of this posts is that these two types of players are specialists not core players or player type.   One is Rodman and the other is Kerr but you still need a Jordan and Pippen, both great players both ways to win.

True enough.

But unless you're paying a lot of money in free agency or selecting high in the draft, you typically don't get the opportunity to acquire players who give you the best of both worlds.  So which type of player would you target first and foremost?  Build a team of athletic defenders and then find some high volume scorers to get you enough points to win, or the opposite?

  That's where the question gets more interesting and the answer gets more murky. Nobody would want a team of all unathletic scorers or poor shooting athletes. You'd most likely want a mix of the two built around a couple of good all-around players. I agree that people tend to value athleticism over skill but I think in their mind they aren't making the choice you think they are. They talk about more athletic players having "more upside", but in their mind that means "if they somehow develop good offensive games they'll be stars. They don't think they're choosing athleticism over skill because they think they're getting both.

[PhoSita]

I agree that people tend to value athleticism over skill but I think in their mind they aren't making the choice you think they are. They talk about more athletic players having "more upside", but in their mind that means "if they somehow develop good offensive games they'll be stars. They don't think they're choosing athleticism over skill because they think they're getting both.

Right.  I agree. 

I guess I'm suggesting that more often than not, if you want have a good chance of getting a useful player, you have to be willing to prioritize.  You can try to take on guys who are "projects" because they have a lot of the physical tools but haven't figured out how to play basketball with them yet, but that's much riskier.  Potential is largely overrated.  Players who have it are great, but personally I'd only invest a lot of resources in a player who was already pretty good in addition to having that potential. 

At the end of the day what is most important is that we're getting players who can contribute to a winning team.