General Question about player skill and context

[jaketwice]

Do you believe that a good player will always make a team better, or do you think that the scheme in which a player plays is extremely important?

In the Embiid for Olynyk thread, people are calling Olynyk an "8th man on a good team," and Embiid, "a potential franchise center."

It seems to me that the players with whom Embiid and Olynyk play matter a lot in connection with those prognostications. Embiid is not going to grow as much, or be as good, playing with Noel. They play essentially the same position, and all of the things a shooting PF might do for Embiid (pull a defender away from the hoop, give him another open target to receive passes) Noel will never do.

Likewise, Olynyk has short arms and a lack of lateral quickness. How can he be successful guarding the other teams' biggest player night after night? Wouldn't he benefit from a player who was a true post presence? 15 feet from the basket, he'd be much harder to guard.

If you accept those propositions - then isn't it also true that whether any given player might reach his potential depends on the team where he is drafted (or to which he is traded) in some major way?

Or do you think K.O. will always be an "8th man on a good team," no matter what?

[Donoghus]

I think KO, long-term, probably projects more as a rotation guy, IMO.  I'm having a hard time envisioning as a starter on a championship caliber team unless several strong pieces are in place, namely in the other front court positions. If he is to start, more likely, its going to be on a lower rung team with some glaring issues (sound familiar?).

Healthy, I think Embiid can project to be a star, no matter what system he's in.  On a perennial loser where he's allowed to be the man or as the #1 or #2 piece on a championship team.

The HUGE question mark is the health.  It certainly hasn't started off well for the kid and its getting harder to envision a lengthy career with little health concern.

[jaketwice]

I think KO, long-term, probably projects more as a rotation guy, IMO.  I'm having a hard time envisioning as a starter on a championship caliber team unless several strong pieces are in place, namely in the other front court positions. If he is to start, more likely, its going to be on a lower rung team with some glaring issues (sound familiar?).

Healthy, I think Embiid can project to be a star, no matter what system he's in.  On a perennial loser where he's allowed to be the man or as the #1 or #2 piece on a championship team.

The HUGE question mark is the health.  It certainly hasn't started off well for the kid and its getting harder to envision a lengthy career with little health concern.

That doesn't really answer the general question - unless I should take what you're saying to be that, cream rises to the top whatever the context.

[Donoghus]

I think KO, long-term, probably projects more as a rotation guy, IMO.  I'm having a hard time envisioning as a starter on a championship caliber team unless several strong pieces are in place, namely in the other front court positions. If he is to start, more likely, its going to be on a lower rung team with some glaring issues (sound familiar?).

Healthy, I think Embiid can project to be a star, no matter what system he's in.  On a perennial loser where he's allowed to be the man or as the #1 or #2 piece on a championship team.

The HUGE question mark is the health.  It certainly hasn't started off well for the kid and its getting harder to envision a lengthy career with little health concern.

That doesn't really answer the general question - unless I should take what you're saying to be that, cream rises to the top whatever the context.

Essentially.  It's usually the case in the NBA. 

[D.o.s.]

I don't understand what's so difficult to grasp about different players having different ceilings, myself.

What is happening, though, is that the OP is introducing hypotheticals that have no standing in reality (particularly in the case of Embiid and his teammates) in order to bolster a relatively weak point. There is a reason the 'good player on a bad team' phenomenon exists, and being a good player isn't a relativistic thing owing to teammates. It is it's own metric, and is something that is fairly easy to discern, within reason.

The general idea that different players can flourish or flounder based on the team/situation they get drafted into is entirely different, although certainly a real thing. Being drafted to, say, the Minnesota Timberwolves with the first overall pick would not make Olynyk a better player than Wiggins. Inverting their situations (if Wiggins, or say Smart, fell to Boston with the 13th pick in 2013) does not change the most likely projections of any player's success as far as their on the court contributions and abilities are concerned.

[Vermont Green]

Context can have some impact on a player but not to the magnitude necessary to close the gap between two players as far apart as Olynyk and Embiid (the hypothetical healthy version of Embiid that is of course).

[Ilikesports17]

context is incredibly important. Look at the Drummond-Monroe frontcourt. They are two very very talented players but they dont fit together at all. I think a Drummond-KO frontcourt is more effective despite the fact that Monroe is far more valuable as an asset than KO.

[D.o.s.]

context is incredibly important. Look at the Drummond-Monroe frontcourt. They are two very very talented players but they dont fit together at all. I think a Drummond-KO frontcourt is more effective despite the fact that Monroe is far more valuable as an asset than KO.

Sure, but Drummond (pretty obviously) has a higher ceiling than Monroe. Like I said, they're different things that exist independently of each other despite an effort to conflate them.

[jaketwice]

context is incredibly important. Look at the Drummond-Monroe frontcourt. They are two very very talented players but they dont fit together at all. I think a Drummond-KO frontcourt is more effective despite the fact that Monroe is far more valuable as an asset than KO.

Sure, but Drummond (pretty obviously) has a higher ceiling than Monroe. Like I said, they're different things that exist independently of each other despite an effort to conflate them.

I appreciate all of the thoughtful replies. While I agree that, Wiggins is better than K.O.; surely, if you had a healthy Kobe Bryant, a healthy Chris Paul, a healthy Paul Pierce, and a healthy Michael Finley - you'd be going for a championship, and if you had ONLY the choice of Wiggins or Olynyk, would take Olynyk. That's an extreme example.

I just think it's an interesting aspect in considering whether the 76ers should try and trade Embiid.

[D.o.s.]

I would agree with that, although I think an argument could be made for grabbing Wiggins, running Pierce at the four and hiding Kobe wherever you could.

Again, though, I think you measure a player's fit when you're on a championship squad, and until you're there or on the cusp of being there you take talent and ceiling beyond anything else.