Its interesting to read the comments but today it seems the player with 30 points per game would immediately be viewed as great/more talented regardless of assists per game, rebounds per game, strength of schedule, talent of teammates etc. When I see player of the week contests it is generally based on points per game. I watched a game last night that showed an example of both, i.e. Team A had one player with talent so every play revolved around him getting a shot or trying to score and he had 30+ points. Team B had multiple talented players and their scoring was more balanced. If you were watching the game you would say that at least one player on Team B was more talented than the player with 30 points but my question is... if you saw only line scores what would you immediately think?

Hummm...I don't know that I can answer that question, mostly being I'm not sure what the term "great physical attribute" is in reference to the post or in comparison to what others would consider a "great physical attribute", but I will try.

 

Let's take a very easy, but notable example. Larry Bird. It could be argued that Larry Bird had no "great" physical attribute, comparably to his level of competition. He wasn't fast, wasn't quick, not an explosive jumper...outside of being tall in relation to the general public, it could be argued he really didn't have any one great thing.

 

What did he have? Well he had all of the things I listed, and had them in spades. He also got the most out of the physical attributes he had. And the sum of his parts were greater than the individual pieces. How often does that happen? Probably not a whole lot.

 

I would agree that athletically Larry Bird was challenged to say the least. But I would have to say that he was very skilled (shooting, passing, dribbling, and ability to catch the ball). Otherwise, thru hard work he developed a great imagination of what he could do with the ball and made it real. It also helped being 6'9":popcorn: