The other day, while driving back home to Bloomington from Indianapolis, as usual I was listening to various sportstalk radio to help pass the time. One of the hosts (I dont remember which one) stated this idea of a grading scale of how truly good a current NBA player might be, along with his contention that most players in the league were overrated. This was about the time Iverson was being dealt I think, and the overall discussion that day was about AI and how good he really was. That prompted the host to come up with this grading scale of rating players, of which Ive thought about and embellished just a little bit.
A players: These are your truly elite superstars, players who are clearly the best in the league, and can lead a team to a championship as their franchises best player. They have few if any flaws to their game, and have proven they can almost single handedly lead their team to a championship, or at least deep in the playoffs. Their talent is truly overwhelming and they have an elite level all around game. Very rare to have a guy like this on your team.
Members of this exclusive club: Dwayne Wade, Lebron James, Tim Duncan, Kobe Bryant, Dirk Nowitzki, Steve Nash.
B players: Really great players who dont quite make it to that next level above them. Most are all stars, but who have some sort of flaw in their game that puts them at this level. These are players who are probably the best player on their teams, but by themselves can't propel them to a champoinship or near championship level. Maybe they are fading due to age, have poorer attitudes, have conditioning or injury issues, or just arent quite good enough to be a premier level player who singlehandedly wins games:
Some members of this club: Allan Iverson, Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce, Shaquille ONeal, Carmelo Anthony, Ray Allen, Jermaine Oneal, Gilbert Arenas, Joe Johnson, Yao Ming, Elton Brand, Amare Stoudamire.
C. These are average NBA starters or rotation guys. Most of the league falls in this category. They have clear strengths and weaknesses. They are inconsistent from game to game. They are usually your 3rd -10th best players. Winning and losing often depends on them from game to game. Teams are always looking to replace them with guys in the above 2 categories, but they cannot. Sometimes, young guys on this list grow into a "B" player, but most often if they dont do it quickly, they dont do it at all. Sometimes, when paired with players who rate above themselves, they may appear to be better than they actually are.
Members of this club on the Pacers: Danny Granger, Al Harrington, Jamal Tinsley, Marquis Daniels, Jeff Foster, Stephen Jackson, Sarunas.
D. Journeymen/projects: These are guys who are filling the end of the bench. Mostly, these are guys who if they changed teams no one would notice. These are guys either too young or old to contribute much, and many of these guys are in danger of being replaced.
F players: These are players who have attitudes or games that are so bad they have their own special category. Regardless of their talent or who they are surrounded by, they kill your team by their sheer presence on it. In reality, their are few players in the league who fit this category, but they do exist:
Example: Ron Artest
The broadcaster stated his opinion that where teams get into trouble, is when their "B", "C", and "D" players either dont compliment each other's games, or if they begin to each think they are better than they are. He also said that was fans/ general managers biggest faults, because they overrate their talent.
So let me throw this theory out there to the public: Have we overrated in our own minds our own talent, and is that why we all get so frustrated with this teams inconsistency? Are we not as talented a roster as it might appear? And if thats true, what can we do about it?
Do we as pacer nation even agree that this rating system makes sense? Do we agree with where the announcer listed the players at?