PDA

View Full Version : Question of the day 1/12/11



Peck
01-12-2011, 02:13 PM
Many times it has been said that you are only as good as your best player. Others have made the point that a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link.

In the NBA, certainly a star driven league, which is more important? Having a superstar player but a weak supporting cast or having a cast of solid players none of which are anything more than just stars (no superstars)?

Obviously the answer is to have both, but if you can only have one or the other which do you go with?

SMosley21
01-12-2011, 02:17 PM
I think you have to have a strong overall team. When your team is bolstered by one superstar, you always run the risk of turning to complete garbage as soon as that star leaves/gets injured, ala the Cleveland Cavaliers.

BillS
01-12-2011, 02:20 PM
I prefer to see a team of solid players, at most star level, because that leads to team basketball rather than best player H-O-R-S-E.

I think, though, in this league you have to have a superstar to get any respect on the floor.

sportfireman
01-12-2011, 02:37 PM
Solids....

Hicks
01-12-2011, 02:39 PM
Many times it has been said that you are only as good as your best player. Others have made the point that a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link.

In the NBA, certainly a star driven league, which is more important? Having a superstar player but a weak supporting cast or having a cast of solid players none of which are anything more than just stars (no superstars)?

Obviously the answer is to have both, but if you can only have one or the other which do you go with?

Technically either has proven to be fairly successful, but you're more likely to succeed with having the best player on either your team or the team you're playing against. That's usually what it's going to boil down to unless the supporting cast is so bad that even the superstar can't make up the difference.

But if my choices are a team with 5 not-quite-stars or a team with 1, 2, or 3 stars with 1-4 good role players, I go with the latter every time.

pacer4ever
01-12-2011, 02:41 PM
5 stars rather than 1 superstar

Speed
01-12-2011, 02:45 PM
You need a clutch player, I do believe that, regardless. If that helps.

I'd put a clutch player who can score in the 4th quarter, as the current Pacers #1 need. Even with last night at the sixers.

Sookie
01-12-2011, 02:46 PM
five solid/star players.

Five solid/star players has shown to win in the NBA (pistons)
One superstar with a week supporting cast (Cleveland) not so much..

pacer4ever
01-12-2011, 02:46 PM
You need a clutch player, I do believe that, regardless. If that helps.

I'd put a clutch player who can score as the current Pacers #1 need.

like Mr. Billups of the 04 pistons

pwee31
01-12-2011, 02:47 PM
In the NBA... One superstar. Of course you need other decent pieces surrounding them, but you only need 1 superstar.

Of course top teams these days have multiple superstars, but I think one superstar is better than solid players.

I guess that depends on examples, but that's how I feel.

I would rather have Lebron w/ the Cavs type team, than have a Bucks/Hawks type of team. Just b/c that superstar gets the benefit of the doubt. That superstar gets the national coverage, that superstar makes you relevant as long as they're healthy and on the team.

In college, I take the solid team, I would rather have a Butler, than a Ohio St. Even Turner team.

NBA is about marketing the stars, so I take the superstar

flox
01-12-2011, 02:48 PM
I'd like someone else to name another team that has one a championship with five solid players.

In the NBA- you win with your best players and then your role players.

Eleazar
01-12-2011, 02:48 PM
History constantly proves it takes more than 1 superstar, otherwise the Cavs would have multiple ring by now. No matter what championship team you look at with all but a few exceptions they had solid teams from top to bottom. They may also have a superstar, but that superstar isn't what made them into a great team, it is only what propelled them to be better than the other great teams that didn't have a superstar.

Day-V
01-12-2011, 02:48 PM
You need a clutch player, I do believe that, regardless. If that helps.

This.


This is tempting me to pick the superstar. With the Superstar, you can mold the rest of the team around him. Having a team full of solids could potentially lead to alpha-dog issues or lead to not having a consistent scorer in the clutch.

Sookie
01-12-2011, 02:52 PM
I'd like someone else to name another team that has one a championship with five solid players.

In the NBA- you win with your best players and then your role players.

The Spurs were five stars. Timmy was arguably a superstar, but he wasn't the player that was going to take the last shot.

Name one team that has won with one superstar and four weak players.

Of course, I believe the best way to build a team is around 3 all star/borderline all star players, and good role players. I actually think the Pacers, depending on if Hibbert can get his act together, are pretty close. (they just need one more..and to grow up a bit..and to get rid of the vets)

So long as you have a clutch player amoung the five very good players, and you have a leader...but that doesn't necessarily mean you have to have an all star.

edit: Also, this question is assuming that we don't do any trades with the team that we got, right? Because if so, I do think it's easier to upgrade around a superstar than it is to try and upgrade with a bunch of really good players.

ballism
01-12-2011, 02:54 PM
I'd take a superstar, you can always upgrade the weak guys. Draft, FA, trade away picks, take on money, promise good minutes to good cheap vets. There's a few Caron Butlers and Shaqs to be had every year.

pacer4ever
01-12-2011, 02:56 PM
The Spurs were five stars. Timmy was arguably a superstar, but he wasn't the player that was going to take the last shot.

Name one team that has one with one superstar and four week players.

almost all the teams in the 80s and 90s had 2 superstar and a good cast

Lakers magic,worthy Celtics Bird,Mcale ,Parrish Bulls jordan,pippen


even contenders like the Jazz Stockton,Malone

Unclebuck
01-12-2011, 02:56 PM
If I understand the question correctly. I think it is more important to have 1 superstar. I think history clearly shows that.

Of course there is a lot of wiggle room in who is a star or superstar - so there is room for discussion there.

Bball
01-12-2011, 02:57 PM
I think ultimately it's how much your superstar is willing to defer to make the team around him better... yet still retain the ability that when the team needs him he gets them the clutch basket or steal/stop on the defensive end.

Eleazar
01-12-2011, 03:05 PM
If I understand the question correctly. I think it is more important to have 1 superstar. I think history clearly shows that.

Of course there is a lot of wiggle room in who is a star or superstar - so there is room for discussion there.

No history hasn't shown that it is all about having a superstar, what history has shown is it is about have a bunch of great players around 1 superstar. The reason a team like Atlanta struggles to be as good as Boston isn't because Boston has a superstar, it is because Boston has a bunch of stars and a superstar. It is hard to find teams that won championships that didn't have at least 2 or 3 other stars on their team. It is tough to find a team that had 1 superstar with a bunch of average players around him. After Shaq left Kobe couldn't win until he had stars surrounding him, even Micheal needed two hall of fame worthy players playing next to him.

You aren't going to win with just one of the other, but I personally would rather have the 5 stars because they will be a good team for much longer, and if you are able to get that superstar then you are ready to compete for a championship.

ballism
01-12-2011, 03:15 PM
It is tough to find a team that had 1 superstar with a bunch of average players around him.

Hakeem x2. Dirk came crazy close as well.

It takes a league without superstar clusters though. With current Heat, Celtics and Lakers, those kind of teams are 2nd tier.

CableKC
01-12-2011, 03:32 PM
Alex, I'll take "Whatever the Pistons did between 2002 to 2008 ( before they traded Billups )" for $500.

I'll take 5 very solid Borderline All-Stars over 1 superstar and 4 supporting cast members anyday. Having a SuperStar is really nice.....but I like what the Pistons did with the whole Rip/Tayshaun/Billups trio during that period of time. You never had to rely on a single Player to carry the Team....any 3 of them was capable of leading and carrying the Team to victory. They were like the Borg from ST:TNG, you can lose one of them but the rest of the Team was more then capable of making up for the loss where they acted more as a "collective" then having 1 guy doing everything and 4 other guys watching on the floor.

BRushWithDeath
01-12-2011, 03:45 PM
We aren't a good team because our best player is worse than the other team's best player, barring injuries, every night.

PacersAllDay
01-12-2011, 03:57 PM
It depends on how good the superstar is. If we're talking top 3 talent in the league, he is going to make the people around him better - and you are going to win plenty of games.

xIndyFan
01-12-2011, 03:58 PM
five solid/star players.

Five solid/star players has shown to win in the NBA (pistons)
One superstar with a week supporting cast (Cleveland) not so much..


Alex, I'll take "Whatever the Pistons did between 2002 to 2008 ( before they traded Billups )" for $500.

this, although you could make the argument that chauncy billups was the superstar on this team. just not the athletic jump out of the gym kind.

grace
01-12-2011, 04:24 PM
Promise me the super star will never get hurt and I'll take him. Otherwise I'll take a team of solid players.

PacerHound
01-12-2011, 04:47 PM
Check out all the championship Boston Celtic teams going back to the 60's for your answer. They always had multiple stars/super stars. Never ever solely just one super star.

beast23
01-12-2011, 05:22 PM
You need a clutch player, I do believe that, regardless. If that helps.

I'd put a clutch player who can score in the 4th quarter, as the current Pacers #1 need. Even with last night at the sixers.I totally agree that this is more important than having 5 stars on a team or even a single superstar.

Most games in the NBA are at least half-way close until well into the fourth quarter. More times than not, winning or losing a game boils down to being able to execute as the game winds down.

If the Pacers had a clutch player, their record would be well over .500 at this time. We have been close so many times, but are prevented from scoring enough points in the last 4-5 minutes of games.

If you think about it, the players have no superstars and certainly do not field a lineup even remotely close to 5 stars. We have only one star player in our lineup, Granger. Yet, if we had a clutch player on the roster, we would have won several more games.

flox
01-12-2011, 05:23 PM
The Spurs were five stars. Timmy was arguably a superstar, but he wasn't the player that was going to take the last shot.


I don't think the spurs ever started 5 stars.