Define "First option" for me please.

[Kblaze8855]

A quick search shows me people on ISH saying all of these people were not true first options for one reason or another:


Klay
Pippen
Curry
Reggie Miller
Pau Gasol
Bosh
Kemba Walker
Giannis
Lebron
Kevin Garnett
Anthony Davis
Clyde Drexler
Shaq


The list goes on but the point is clear. You have garbage men types, good scorers, all time great scorers and everything else. We need some clarity. Ive heard different points of view. Ive heard it means a guy cant be a first option on a title team. That the guy isnt the clutch go to guy. That the guy doesnt create his own shots. All of those have flaws to me...


If its by likelyhood to lead a team to a title....you remove 80% of the best scorers in history. Most GOAT scorers never did it even with great teams. I realize its a perception thing where you go by "Could" but thats pretty hard to swallow too when guys like Gus Williams and Chauncey Billups actually did it. Tmac didnt lead a team to any success....clear first option.

Not being the clutch shot maker. Guys like Shaq and other bigs often get this. Not being the ball handler to create a look late. The obvious issue is....wouldnt that make a LOT of guards first options on teams they are role players on? Bigs just dont generally dribble. Doesnt really make say....Nick Vanexel or Lou Williams the first option on a team with Shaq. Dribbling doesnt mean sets are primarily run to feature you....which takes me to another issue...


You know first option generally means who a set is run for right? And that the first option might not even get the ball?

How close did you watch the Bud era Hawks? If you watched them a lot you would notice a LOT of their plays were run to get Kyle Korver a 3....but if he didnt come open the next option would be someone in the post(Paul often) on the side of the floor vacated by Kyles man following him through a gauntlet of screens. When the first option is Korver....but the guy who shoots is Millsap....who was first option? Just something to consider...


Then we have the guys hated by those who apparently think basketball is about dribbling(while simultaneously claiming to be serious fans and non casuals). These are the types to call out guys like Klay for being "Bird fed" as if just anyone could do it and dribbling more to score makes you more effective. This is the Klay, Reggie, sometimes Ray Allen(to stupid people) group who people watch make tons of big shots but then ignore that to call them non first options(apparently forgetting the clutch scorer qualification from earlier).


You also have the garbage bucket scorers like Marion....or Antawn Jamison for someone more skilled. You dont have to run plays...but they will score 18-25.


Theres also the transition scorers people hate on for not being elite in the half court. Drexler...Pippen...at times Giannis. Ben Simmons. Lot of guys guys who in fact have led teams in scoring...good team. Not being a takeover one on one 15 seconds to go player doesnt mean the team doesnt depend on your scoring more than anyone elses.


Let me say....I understand some of these to a point. And a lot of the times people say "____ isnt a first option" kinda exaggerating for effect(im sure ive done this) which is why im giving you a chance to tell me what you mean...literally. Your real stance.

There are 30 NBA teams....but the way people talk you would think there are only 6-8 first options. This clearly cant be the case. But I get it in some cases. Rozier is about to be the first option for the Hornets. But is he A first option or just THE first option? Subtle but important difference.

30 teams must have the first option.....does that mean they all have a first option?

Factually I guess it does count....but im here for your opinion. Even though I know some of you are about to tell me someone who scores like 25 a game in a league of 400 people isnt a first option when like 6 people max score more.

I think lately the focus has been on "Cant lead a team to a title" which just seems kinda stupid to me considering how many teams there are that cant win yet have a clear first option....

But lets see what we all think. You all have a right to your weird ass opinions I guess.....

[Rudeboy3]

A first option is a player that can carry/orchestrate the teams' offence the best. And I agree with you with the last 15 seconds bs, a player can score all his teams' point in 45 of the 46 minutes but if he passes up the ball in the last minute, all of a sudden he's a scrub and can't be the best player on a team.

[Ainosterhaspie]

I'd rather focus on the best player than the first option. That's generally what people are talking about anyway, but they get too focused on the scoring part of the game and lose track of everything else. The result is talking about first option as best player even though they aren't necessarily the same thing.

If you look at the Warriors, Curry is the guy that makes their offense hum, but Durant was the guy they could count on to get a basket when everything broke down. They were both first options in different ways.

There are too many different valid ways to look at it to have one firm answer. It really needs to be broken down into its components. Who can score when all else fails. Who can get you the most points. Who can run the offense effectively. He might be a first option by creating good look for everyone else even if he isn't the highest scorer. The more of these component skills the player has the more he is a complete first option, but you don't have to have them all to be a/the first option for your team.

[RRR3]

@34-24 footwork

[warriorfan]

Someone who can bare a large load of scoring (usually around 25ppg or more) while having a moderately successful team.

[NuggetsFan]

Whatever player is the primary option for the most sets. Different schemes would have different primary options either as a creator or a scorer. Someone like Kenyon Martin would be the primary option on alot of plays finishing, but Kidd would be the primary option overall across all plays as a ball handler. It's pretty simple. Anybody who's played basketball at any level or coached should know it. Just like in alot of sets you'd have multiple options for the creator to chose from based on what the defense gives you. Alot of first options tend to get the most non plays ran for him, and the freedom to improvise all tho today I'd say most teams have anywhere from 1-3 guys like that.

First options tend to be the best player and the sets are created around them depending on skillsets. Look at like Steve Nash in Dallas vs PHX. Someone like prime Kidd would run entirely different sets than someone like Dirk. Both would be the same. Be the primary option for the most sets either as as the finisher or creator.

[DaHeezy]

First option is an arbitrary statement used to boost or diminish a player by calling another player an option B

If we actually want to label first option I would say he's the clear cut best player on that team. First option is relevant to the talent your surrounded by

[Loco 50]

A quick search shows me people on ISH saying all of these people were not true first options for one reason or another:


Klay
Pippen
Curry
Reggie Miller
Pau Gasol
Bosh
Kemba Walker
Giannis
Lebron
Kevin Garnett
Anthony Davis
Clyde Drexler
Shaq

You taking trolls with agendas serious now? In looking at your list....

Klay - eh, option 1B to Curry's 1A prior to Durant, got bumped back to 1C after Durant's inclusion
Pippen - MJ, no further discussion needed
Curry - stupid agenda trolling
Reggie Miller - do these idiots even watch basketball?
Pau Gasol - again, what? Clear first option. Best offensive big in the second Laker's run. Kobetards trying to diminish his skills.
Bosh - Toronto, yes. Miami, clearly not.
Kemba Walker - meh
Giannis - you're gonna fail asking him to be a first option
Lebron - Kobetards strike again
Kevin Garnett - you're gonna fail asking him to be a first option till you get a 1B and 1C that are just as good if not better scorers in Allen and Pierce.
Anthony Davis - clear first option - agenda trolling
Clyde Drexler - probably people that never watched him play talking stupid
Shaq - Kobetards are cancer. Shaq carries you for 3 quarters; fouling out opposing bigs, so Kobe can clean up in the 4th and he's not a first option?

First option is the guy that will efficiently get you the most buckets when you need them. It's a cumulative/carry the weight throughout the entire game type thing. Not a clutch basket when time's running out. A few guys can obviously do both, but that's what separates the GOAT ultimate first options from the rest of the stars.

Ultimate first options off the top of my head:

MJ
Bird
Magic
Durant
Duncan
Hakeem
Kareem

A few flawed first options:

Shaq - couldn't hit his ft's
Iverson - not efficient
Kobe - same
LeBron - hesitant, but has improved over the years so I may waiver on him.
KG - passive
D. Rob - no post game
Ewing - inefficient
Pippen - reluctant to take over games
Ray Allen and Reggie Miller - too perimeter oriented for their day

Curry and Thompson are interesting in that, in the old school game they'd be flawed first options, like Miller, because they're so perimeter dependent, but in today's game they're obviously about as perfect a fit a team could ask for.

You've mentioned it before, but Abdul Rauf in today's game....Holy shit, he'd have been a legend. Mark Price. Reggie Miller could have been more. Dale Ellis. Tim Hardaway was great in his day, but with today's rules? Unstoppable.

To my chagrin, I'd probably have to throw Harden in as an ultimate option in today's game as well.....

To your point about some claiming that a player is a first option just because they didn't ring. As you alluded, it's asinine.

Barkley was an ultimate first option, just couldn't get the right mix of talent. Mitch Richmond was a guy that just wasted away on a team with no talent for almost his entire career and he seemed okay with it for the most part. Guy should have been a nationwide name. Lot's of players just need the right mix.

LeBron isn't ringing without talent around him, same as Curry isn't, same as Kobe wasn't, same as D Rob couldn't. It's the reason I see them as flawed. The more flaws you've got as a first option, the more talent you need surrounding you.

[iamgine]

First option simply means a guy who should be the number 1 scoring option on offense.

When people talk about x and y is not a first option, they simply means he's not a great person to be #1 scoring option on offense, usually better as a complimentary player because of the way they play.

A guy like Kyle Korver can certainly be first option if you run enough screen for him. If a team can play this way and have a great offense then there's no reason to not call him a legit first option. Even Jared Dudley would be an amazing first option in the YMCA.

[SouBeachTalents]

You taking trolls with agendas serious now? In looking at your list....

Klay - eh, option 1B to Curry's 1A prior to Durant, got bumped back to 1C after Durant's inclusion
Pippen - MJ, no further discussion needed
Curry - stupid agenda trolling
Reggie Miller - do these idiots even watch basketball?
Pau Gasol - again, what? Clear first option. Best offensive big in the second Laker's run. Kobetards trying to diminish his skills.
Bosh - Toronto, yes. Miami, clearly not.
Kemba Walker - meh
Giannis - you're gonna fail asking him to be a first option
Lebron - Kobetards strike again
Kevin Garnett - you're gonna fail asking him to be a first option till you get a 1B and 1C that are just as good if not better scorers in Allen and Pierce.
Anthony Davis - clear first option - agenda trolling
Clyde Drexler - probably people that never watched him play talking stupid
Shaq - Kobetards are cancer. Shaq carries you for 3 quarters; fouling out opposing bigs, so Kobe can clean up in the 4th and he's not a first option?

First option is the guy that will efficiently get you the most buckets when you need them. It's a cumulative/carry the weight throughout the entire game type thing. Not a clutch basket when time's running out. A few guys can obviously do both, but that's what separates the GOAT ultimate first options from the rest of the stars.

Ultimate first options off the top of my head:

MJ
Bird
Magic
Durant
Duncan
Hakeem
Kareem

A few flawed first options:

Shaq - couldn't hit his ft's
Iverson - not efficient
Kobe - same
LeBron - hesitant, but has improved over the years so I may waiver on him.
KG - passive
D. Rob - no post game
Ewing - inefficient
Pippen - reluctant to take over games
Ray Allen and Reggie Miller - too perimeter oriented for their day

Curry and Thompson are interesting in that, in the old school game they'd be flawed first options, like Miller, because they're so perimeter dependent, but in today's game they're obviously about as perfect a fit a team could ask for.

You've mentioned it before, but Abdul Rauf in today's game....Holy shit, he'd have been a legend. Mark Price. Reggie Miller could have been more. Dale Ellis. Tim Hardaway was great in his day, but with today's rules? Unstoppable.

To my chagrin, I'd probably have to throw Harden in as an ultimate option in today's game as well.....

To your point about some claiming that a player is a first option just because they didn't ring. As you alluded, it's asinine.

Barkley was an ultimate first option, just couldn't get the right mix of talent. Mitch Richmond was a guy that just wasted away on a team with no talent for almost his entire career and he seemed okay with it for the most part. Guy should have been a nationwide name. Lot's of players just need the right mix.

LeBron isn't ringing without talent around him, same as Curry isn't, same as Kobe wasn't, same as D Rob couldn't. It's the reason I see them as flawed. The more flaws you've got as a first option, the more talent you need surrounding you.

The bolded is such a tired argument. People will never seem to understand that nobody wins it alone, you need good teammates, coaches, and management around you to win titles. The ironic thing is, what you said also applies to most of the players you included in your ultimate first options list. Bird & Duncan played on very talented teams throughout their careers, ditto Magic & Kareem who spent nearly a decade together as teammates. You also included Durant who needed to join a 73 win team to win anything

Even Jordan had what many consider to be the most talented supporting cast of the 90's around him, the only one who didn't need a truly special team around him to win was Hakeem, who as many will counter "only" won 2 when Jordan retired.

[Loco 50]

The bolded is such a tired argument. People will never seem to understand that nobody wins it alone, you need good teammates, coaches, and management around you to win titles. The ironic thing is, what you said also applies to most of the players you included in your ultimate first options list. Bird & Duncan played on very talented teams throughout their careers, ditto Magic & Kareem who spent nearly a decade together as teammates. You also included Durant who needed to join a 73 win team to win anything

Even Jordan had what many consider to be the most talented supporting cast of the 90's around him, the only one who didn't need a truly special team around him to win was Hakeem, who as many will counter "only" won 2 when Jordan retired.

Sure, I could have worded that better. Every championship team obviously has talent. Some more than others. As I stated, the more flawed the first option of that team is, the more talent the team will need to surround him with in my mind. A quality organization and coach are somewhat foregone conclusions of a championship level team in my mind.

The players I put in the top category are all players I feel would win at least one ring eventually, even if they were surrounded by questionable talent their entire careers. Durant is somewhat questionable because he had a championship caliber team in Okc, but chicken shitted his way out to G.S. so now there will always be some doubt in my mind, but if forced to choose, I think he wins one in Okc. I can't stand the guy for being a coward so if you argue otherwise, I'm not gonna put up a fight.

Bird, Magic, Kareem played with a shit ton of talent for almost the entirety of their careers, but there's simply no room for questioning whether or not their offensive capabilities were championship caliber.

Finally, Hakeem had talent. He had Drexler, Thorpe, Cassell, Horry, and was surrounded by an embarrassment of riches of capable three point shooters in Maxwell, Smith and Elie. A lot of teams he beat in the playoffs could have desperately used those weapons.

There's been strange hyperbole concerning Hakeem's career post-championships. He seems to be an odd man out, neutral figure that both LeBron and Kobe fans latch onto to prove some weird points against the opposing side. Hakeem was considered a selfish, blackhole prior to ringing. He also demanded a trade from the franchise and frequently pouted when he didn't get his way. Not exactly the saint that folks that weren't there try to portray him as today.

[MrFonzworth]

You taking trolls with agendas serious now? In looking at your list....

Klay - eh, option 1B to Curry's 1A prior to Durant, got bumped back to 1C after Durant's inclusion
Pippen - MJ, no further discussion needed
Curry - stupid agenda trolling
Reggie Miller - do these idiots even watch basketball?
Pau Gasol - again, what? Clear first option. Best offensive big in the second Laker's run. Kobetards trying to diminish his skills.
Bosh - Toronto, yes. Miami, clearly not.
Kemba Walker - meh
Giannis - you're gonna fail asking him to be a first option
Lebron - Kobetards strike again
Kevin Garnett - you're gonna fail asking him to be a first option till you get a 1B and 1C that are just as good if not better scorers in Allen and Pierce.
Anthony Davis - clear first option - agenda trolling
Clyde Drexler - probably people that never watched him play talking stupid
Shaq - Kobetards are cancer. Shaq carries you for 3 quarters; fouling out opposing bigs, so Kobe can clean up in the 4th and he's not a first option?

First option is the guy that will efficiently get you the most buckets when you need them. It's a cumulative/carry the weight throughout the entire game type thing. Not a clutch basket when time's running out. A few guys can obviously do both, but that's what separates the GOAT ultimate first options from the rest of the stars.

Ultimate first options off the top of my head:

MJ
Bird
Magic
Durant
Duncan
Hakeem
Kareem

A few flawed first options:

Shaq - couldn't hit his ft's
Iverson - not efficient
Kobe - same
LeBron - hesitant, but has improved over the years so I may waiver on him.
KG - passive
D. Rob - no post game
Ewing - inefficient
Pippen - reluctant to take over games
Ray Allen and Reggie Miller - too perimeter oriented for their day

Curry and Thompson are interesting in that, in the old school game they'd be flawed first options, like Miller, because they're so perimeter dependent, but in today's game they're obviously about as perfect a fit a team could ask for.

You've mentioned it before, but Abdul Rauf in today's game....Holy shit, he'd have been a legend. Mark Price. Reggie Miller could have been more. Dale Ellis. Tim Hardaway was great in his day, but with today's rules? Unstoppable.

To my chagrin, I'd probably have to throw Harden in as an ultimate option in today's game as well.....

To your point about some claiming that a player is a first option just because they didn't ring. As you alluded, it's asinine.

Barkley was an ultimate first option, just couldn't get the right mix of talent. Mitch Richmond was a guy that just wasted away on a team with no talent for almost his entire career and he seemed okay with it for the most part. Guy should have been a nationwide name. Lot's of players just need the right mix.

LeBron isn't ringing without talent around him, same as Curry isn't, same as Kobe wasn't, same as D Rob couldn't. It's the reason I see them as flawed. The more flaws you've got as a first option, the more talent you need surrounding you.

A+ post for ISH standards, C+ in an actual basketball discussion as it's clearly agenda driven. How are Gasol and Davis clear cut first options but not Giannis? Is making the conference finals and winning MVP considered failing? And if Garnett needed a 1B and 1C to be considered a first option then Gasol should by no means be considered a 1st option.

The whole point of the thread is to give a clear and concise definition of what a 1st option is, but the examples and reasoning of what you provided did the opposite. Your standards are too situational.

[Loco 50]

A+ post for ISH standards, C+ in an actual basketball discussion as it's clearly agenda driven. How are Gasol and Davis clear cut first options but not Giannis? Is making the conference finals and winning MVP considered failing? And if Garnett needed a 1B and 1C to be considered a first option then Gasol should by no means be considered a 1st option.

The whole point of the thread is to give a clear and concise definition of what a 1st option is, but the examples and reasoning of what you provided did the opposite. Your standards are too situational.

I've no agenda. I was rooting for Giannis to win it all this past year. His offensive game's limitations were a big reason they failed.

Gasol and Davis are clear cut first options. They are both highly efficient post scorers with very good range. I'd much rather run my offense through them than Giannis, however I like Giannis as a player much more and would actually prefer to build a team around him than the other two.

Gasol essentially solo carried Memphis for years. He was surrounded by a few good pieces in Battier and Miller, but that's not enough in my view, so I don't place his lack of playoff success on him solely. I don't even like Gasol, but his offensive game was on point. I'd consider Gasol a much more capable offensive player than Garnett. Not even close in my mind who I'm running the offense through.

[ImKobe]

First option is an arbitrary statement used to boost or diminish a player by calling another player an option B

If we actually want to label first option I would say he's the clear cut best player on that team. First option is relevant to the talent your surrounded by

That doesn't sound right, First Option to me has always been about offense and not who's the overall best player on the team. You could just go by shot attempts, but in a lot of cases we have two stars who take about an equal amount of FGA, then the First Option would be the guy who has the biggest role on offense. A combo guard who takes 20 shots a game but also runs the offense is a first option to a big man who plays off-ball and takes 21 shots a game.

Kobe runs the offense and takes about an equal amount of shots to Shaq in 2001, is he a 2nd option by any standards? His role on offense is much greater than Shaq's. Not only does he score the ball, but he's also responsible for getting Shaq 3-5 of his baskets every game, not including all the FTs that resulted from Kobe giving the ball to Shaq that he never got any credit on the stat line for. Idiots who never watched the actual game will say that Shaq drew in all of the defense, but in reality Kobe saw constant double teams in the Playoffs like every other superstar guard in his era.

I've no agenda. I was rooting for Giannis to win it all this past year. His offensive game's limitations were a big reason they failed.

Gasol and Davis are clear cut first options. They are both highly efficient post scorers with very good range. I'd much rather run my offense through them than Giannis, however I like Giannis as a player much more and would actually prefer to build a team around him than the other two.

Gasol essentially solo carried Memphis for years. He was surrounded by a few good pieces in Battier and Miller, but that's not enough in my view, so I don't place his lack of playoff success on him solely. I don't even like Gasol, but his offensive game was on point. I'd consider Gasol a much more capable offensive player than Garnett. Not even close in my mind who I'm running the offense through.

Lol this post sounds very biased. Gasol's never been a high volume scorer so he's not proven to be able to carry the scoring load like that in the NBA, whereas Garnett has actually led a team to the WCF and another to a championship while carrying a bigger scoring load than Gasol ever has and on much better efficiency. Garnett is one of the GOAT shooters as far as taller players go with god-like jump-shooting numbers in his prime at a volume you would see from guys like Kobe or Jordan or Dirk. Marc Gasol is a better playmaker from the post but he's not close to Garnett in terms of scoring ability.

Marc was a 2nd option to Mike Conley in 2013 when they made that WCF run, you could argue 3rd because I think Z-Bo scored just as much as him.

[Kblaze8855]

Someone who can bare a large load of scoring (usually around 25ppg or more) while having a moderately successful team.

Somewhat weird one. Only 5 people to come into the league in the last 40 years average 25ppg for their careers(Jordan, Durant, Lebron, Iverson, and Karl Malone). Larry Bird averaged 25 only 4 times. Doctor J once. Kyrie once. Wade 5 times in 16 years. Hakeem 4 times in 18 years. Pierce 5 times in 19 years. And he was a first option from like 2000 to 2013.

Point being.....25 isnt a normal output for a great player or a first option.

A league with 30 teams only has like 5 first options at a time?