In basketball, we fetishize the well-rounded star. Beyond demanding aptitude on offense and defense, which is typically reasonable, we require that our scorers pass, that our passers score, that our rim protectors shoot, that our shooters rebound, that our stoppers create.
In defense of the James Hardens
In a league with so few well-rounded stars, is building a team around a one-dimensional offensive star a better long-term strategy?
Troy Taormina-USA TODAY Sports
There are plenty of one-dimensional role players in the NBA. But the top players usually don't get to the top without rounding out their games. (A notable and almost dastardly exception: Steve Nash, always a minus on defense, who won two MVPs that other stars had better, but less gloriously gorgeous cases for.)
Even Kevin Durant, perhaps the greatest scorer of his age in the modern era -- given that MJ was much older than KD upon entering the league -- needed production in other realms to take the MVP away from the ultimate well-rounded star, LeBron. In the injury absence of Russell Westbrook, KD created more plays for himself and teammates and took the lead as a perimeter stopper as Thabo Sefolosha flailed a bit.
Durant’s narrative conquest didn’t come because he took his scoring to even more obscene levels, but because he added peripheral tools to his belt. What’s especially interesting about KD’s cases is that he had them all along -- or at least the previous two seasons -- but didn’t need to use them much because he had Russell Westbrook and a plus-defense Thabo next to him. Only in their absence did KD’s other skills come into full bloom. That says something about basketball’s version of limitations creating better art.
But is having well-rounded stars really so important? LeBron is an exception: he's not just a well-rounded star, he's the best player on the planet, and maybe ever. Consider the next tier, beyond LeBron and KD. There are some stars considered well-rounded -- Joakim Noah, Chris Paul, Paul George -- but there are also a number of stars who excel in one or two areas and are deficient elsewhere. Guys like Kevin Love, James Harden and Stephen Curry.
Here’s the thing about the one-dimensionals: don’t they often excel so much in their areas of expertise that the value of such overrides any value taken from universal aptitude? Is a player like Harden, who is maybe the second-best scorer in the NBA but basically a cardboard cutout on defense, any less valuable than George, a plus defense, solid creator and good scorer?
And let’s ignore hard math for a moment in discussing value. With advanced metrics like real plus-minus and efficiency numbers, you can make a (subjectively-created) objective judgment. Let’s consider the team-building aspect. Is having a hyper-elite scorer who can’t defend any worse than having a very-good-across-the-board star? Would you rather have to build around Harden’s deficiencies given Harden’s incredible strength, or would you rather be able to build around the well-rounded George?
What strikes me is that the one-dimensional star helps give your team a clear identity, and that's hugely important. Even with a healthy George, the Pacers lacked an identity during their downswing and playoff run. The team's second-best player, Lance Stephenson, was also of the well-rounded type. The team's only major one-dimensional player was Roy Hibbert, whose one dimension suffered quite a bit.
How do you build around Paul George? Indiana has done it with other well-rounded players. At point guard, the team has invested cash in George Hill (the ultimate milquetoast NBA point guard). David West is a tough veteran who has fallen into the background at times, more due to age and a never-dominant, yet always-solid offensive game.
The Pacers don't have many shooters to speak of, at least not many who'd get minutes. Hibbert is an elite rim protector who sulks, can't score and struggles to battle for rebounds. The Pacers' lack of identity -- or, more accurately, lack of a definable basketball personality -- helped defeat them. (Of course, the Heat also played a large part.)
With the Rockets, who flamed out earlier than the Pacers, at least Daryl Morey knows what he needs. Harden is, at this point, an absolute zero on defense. So Morey absolutely needs a stud defender at point guard or small forward, or preferably both. The shapes of the holes in the Rockets roster were obvious. The holes in the Pacers roster were more mysterious. Doesn't that matter? When you're run by one-dimensionals, there's a well-defined path to the top of the mountain: fill your holes. When you feature a well-rounded star, you start further up the mountain, but there's no defined route to the top.
The shapes of the holes in the Rockets roster were obvious. The holes in the Pacers roster were more mysterious. Doesn't that matter?
Of course George is out for the season, which causes Indiana more trouble and also suggests another consideration in team-building: how the different style of stars affect injury preparedness. If you lose your best player to injury in the NBA, you are almost always toast. What if you lose your second-best player, your Westbrook? Does having a well-rounded star in that case make more sense than having a one-dimensional?
It would appear so, based on OKC's success with Durant (who, again, was always more well-rounded than we knew). But that said, KD has also proved, like Iverson, Kobe and Tracy McGrady before him, that one amazing scorer can carry an offense to a solid standing. Even with low-offense replacements around him, Harden could put Houston's offense in the top ten. George could not. Even with Stephenson and West, both offensive pluses, the Pacers had a totally mediocre offense. The same could probably be said for one-dimensional defenders; even Peak Ron Artest led some mediocre defenses in Sacramento. So perhaps the real question is whether it's better to build around offensive one-dimensionals vs. well-rounded stars.
Until the market properly prices defense -- which is still underpaid relative to its value at all positions but center -- and barring the acquisition of a LeBron or a Tim Duncan, I'd bet on building around an offensive one-dimensional star over a well-rounded star, a Harden instead of a George. It's like building a quartet around a Coltrane instead of building a band of Jimmy Garrisons.
