Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Basketball - an alternate strategy

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 3
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 template Next
  • #1

    Basketball - an alternate strategy

    So far the meme by the sports media on the Pacers / Bulls series is that the Bulls have just come out slowly, which they need to correct, and that the superior play at the end of games has carried them to victory. The implication is that if they solve their lackadaisical attitude, their problems will be solved.

    The larger meme / story
    This analysis of the series fits well with larger NBA marketing effort and common perception of today's basketball.

    That story, supported by many on this forum, is that despite basketball being a team sport, it is carried by superstars who can take the team on its shoulders and through spectacular and athletic play, win the day.

    The Pacers, without a bona fide superstar (no knock against Danny Grainger, who has played a generally very good series), have little hope if their opponents play to their potential.

    The other meme
    All this is well and good, except that readers should consider that it is all false.

    For in the games I am watching, the Bulls are not coming out flat. They are getting outplayed. They are being out teamed, out hustled and out defended.

    And it is not the Bulls who are coming through at the end of the game nearly as much as it is the Pacers who are self-destructing with sloppy play and self-induced errors. IF the Pacers would believe in themselves, they could easily be winning this series 3-1.

    In support of this story, the Grizzlies are actually enjoying even more success playing team basketball and beating a team with a number of superstars and rated number 1 in the league.

    The meaning of the story
    If my story is correct, then basketball is still more a team game than implied. Good teams who play well together can overcome a few superstars, whose value and salaries have been over-estimated.

    And that story has very real implications on playing tactics and recruiting and training.

    Implications
    1. Teams who wish to avoid the burdening cost of a superstar must populate their teams with adept players from 1-10 positions and attack the inherent weakness of the statistically one-sided payroll of their opponents. IOW, most NBA games, even in the play-offs can not be played at full speed because their superstars can not put out 100% effort over 48 minutes. A more equitably talented team can take advantage of this weakness by playing more rested players at a generally higher energy level and speed. Given the talent of the Pacer bench, they actually have the opportunity to employ this strategy, but have generally not taken advantage of it.
    To disagree with this argument, you must structurally argue that ability drops off precipitously not just from superstar level, but from starter to bench levels, in the NBA. I find it difficult to believe this given that playing time or lack of it, often is a larger predictor of consistent performance. Also, given the sheer number of top level players into the league, I believe it is hard to argue this point.

    2. An effective strategy to emphasize the team sport is to actively recruit capable players that do not demand superstar salaries, AND PLAY THEM. In this scenario, a roster approach of two lines is preferable to a substitution approach. The reason this approach makes sense (taking a lesson from hockey) is that the team is more important than any one player. But some players play better with each other than others; it is their synergy and what they create together that is more important than their individual talent. Sympathetically, groups of players create their own personalities; the Goon squad on the Pacers before they disbanded is a good example. But in hockey there are better ones, where this phenomenon of team sports is not only appreciated but nurtured line by line.

    The explicit challenge to the opponent is that they need to match your intensity the entire game, or risk collapse by the fourth quarter. Said another way, the team is betting their second line is better than that of the other team, if the opponent chooses to respond to their tiredness by playing their bench.

    Conclusion
    It is possible to win the NBA with a team approach despite the marketing efforts of the NBA and ESPN. The Pacers are much closer than they think. They just need to ignore the hype and believe they can do it.

    Please discuss. Thank you for reading.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Basketball - an alternate strategy

    Awesome post. Frank should read this to the team.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Basketball - an alternate strategy

      Fantastic post.

      It's a great advantage to have a superstar, but only if that superstar can play within the team. And the superstar can't be the team.

      A great team, playing great team basketball will usually win a game.

      You also don't need a superstar to make clutch shots. As this team gets older, they'll execute better. I've said it before, at the end of games, Boston can get Ray Allen an open three pointer if that's the play they want to go to (and it often is) because they execute well. It's not like Ray creates it for himself. He just knocks it down.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Basketball - an alternate strategy

        This team methodology is the major theme in Bill Simmons book, The Book of Basketball. I am in the middle of reading it and highly suggest each PD member to do the same.
        The Brawl set our franchise back years but it was a hell of a lot fun to watch!

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Basketball - an alternate strategy

          This is a point i have been trying to argue for for a long time. Every time there are only one or two people who come out with support while the vast majority say, "no we need a superstar."

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Basketball - an alternate strategy

            Team play is going a long way for the Pacers at this point, I agree.

            An equally important factor is the overall physicality of the series which further heightens the Pacers' overall advantage in the team concept. Yes, Rose had, prior to rolling his ankle, gotten his points and made defensive plays that legitimately establish him as a strong MVP candidate. However, for him to establish his dominance in this series, he has had to overcome physicality and concentrate even more than usual on being the scorer which has limited the effectiveness of the remainder of the Bulls offensive attack especially in the face of the Pacers' stifling physical defense (gosh it REALLY feels great to type that!!!!!).

            During the regular season, the officials would not call the games this way, obviously, and therefore the superstar Rose would lead the Bulls to relatively easy wins in most cases.

            So, the simplistic lesson here, in my opinion, is that there are four types of teams --

            1. those that aren't able to compete during the regular season or the playoffs due to a lack of both talent and physicality,

            2. those that do well during the regular season but quickly fade during the playoffs due to having talent but lacking physicality,

            3. those that don't necessarily do well during the regular season yet surprise in the playoffs due to having just enough talent to get there and then the capability to be physical when the games count the most

            4. the few teams that both dominate the regular season AND the playoffs due to having talented superstars, a reasonable supporting cast, and the ability to dig in and fight in the physical playoffs and prevail due to the superstars having enough energy to close games out when the rest of both teams are exhausted from the grind of the season and the physicality of the playoffs.

            I purposely left out coaching for the purposes of this theory despite the impact that coaches have on the playing style and effectiveness of the players as our Pacers are showing currently.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Basketball - an alternate strategy

              It would never happen in the NBA, but I'd love to see a team employ two selfless 5 man units that each get about 24 minutes. No mixing units. When there's a sub, it's 5 men in, 5 men out. Hockey line mentality, as OP was saying. Switch units depending on the situation.

              Denver could do it if they wanted.

              Lawson - Affalo - Gallinari - K-Mart - Nene
              Felton - JR Smith - Chandler - Harrington - Birdman/Mosgov (depending on opponent's 5)

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Basketball - an alternate strategy

                So since we've been competitive in a series in which Rose has dominated, that somehow means we can win without a superstar?

                What examples beside the Pistons (who were absolutely loaded) of a few years back can anyone give me of this theory.

                It's much harder to build a championship team without a super star. So I'm not sure why anyone would want to try it.

                Originally posted by CooperManning View Post
                It would never happen in the NBA, but I'd love to see a team employ two selfless 5 man units that each get about 24 minutes. No mixing units. When there's a sub, it's 5 men in, 5 men out. Hockey line mentality, as OP was saying. Switch units depending on the situation.

                Denver could do it if they wanted.

                Lawson - Affalo - Gallinari - K-Mart - Nene
                Felton - JR Smith - Chandler - Harrington - Birdman/Mosgov (depending on opponent's 5)
                They are and they are getting waxed.

                We are actually the closest thing to that besides them, and we are down 3-1 as well.
                Last edited by Taterhead; 04-26-2011, 01:57 AM.
                "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Basketball - an alternate strategy

                  Originally posted by Whiskeyjim View Post
                  So far the meme by the sports media on the Pacers / Bulls series is that the Bulls have just come out slowly, which they need to correct, and that the superior play at the end of games has carried them to victory. The implication is that if they solve their lackadaisical attitude, their problems will be solved.

                  The larger meme / story
                  This analysis of the series fits well with larger NBA marketing effort and common perception of today's basketball.

                  That story, supported by many on this forum, is that despite basketball being a team sport, it is carried by superstars who can take the team on its shoulders and through spectacular and athletic play, win the day.
                  This has been proven by thirty years of NBA championships right? Besides the 2004 Pistons I can't think of another title team that hasn't had a top 5 player on it.

                  The Pacers, without a bona fide superstar (no knock against Danny Grainger, who has played a generally very good series), have little hope if their opponents play to their potential.

                  The other meme
                  All this is well and good, except that readers should consider that it is all false.

                  For in the games I am watching, the Bulls are not coming out flat. They are getting outplayed. They are being out teamed, out hustled and out defended.

                  And it is not the Bulls who are coming through at the end of the game nearly as much as it is the Pacers who are self-destructing with sloppy play and self-induced errors. IF the Pacers would believe in themselves, they could easily be winning this series 3-1.
                  I don't see this. The Pacers believe in themselves plenty. Professional athletes are trained from childhood to believe in themselves. Extreme self confidence usually isn't a problem for them. The Pacers don't have the talent to withstand the Bulls playing and pressing at full speed.

                  In support of this story, the Grizzlies are actually enjoying even more success playing team basketball and beating a team with a number of superstars and rated number 1 in the league.

                  The meaning of the story
                  If my story is correct, then basketball is still more a team game than implied. Good teams who play well together can overcome a few superstars, whose value and salaries have been over-estimated.
                  The Grizzlies top three players make $17 million, $13 million and $7 million. The Bulls top three make $15 million, $11 million and $5 million. By your guidelines wouldn't the Grizzlies be the team being over-estimated?

                  Implications
                  1. Teams who wish to avoid the burdening cost of a superstar must populate their teams with adept players from 1-10 positions and attack the inherent weakness of the statistically one-sided payroll of their opponents. IOW, most NBA games, even in the play-offs can not be played at full speed because their superstars can not put out 100% effort over 48 minutes. A more equitably talented team can take advantage of this weakness by playing more rested players at a generally higher energy level and speed. Given the talent of the Pacer bench, they actually have the opportunity to employ this strategy, but have generally not taken advantage of it.
                  To disagree with this argument, you must structurally argue that ability drops off precipitously not just from superstar level, but from starter to bench levels, in the NBA. I find it difficult to believe this given that playing time or lack of it, often is a larger predictor of consistent performance. Also, given the sheer number of top level players into the league, I believe it is hard to argue this point.
                  A fundamental pillar of your argument seems to be that the talent gap between "superstars" and the next level of players is minimal compared to the general perception. I'd argue this isn't true. The top 5% of players in the league, like the top 5% of most fields, possess a far, far greater amount of talent than the rest of the players in the league. Ten players decide the fate of the league. Most of the rest of the players could be replaced fairly easily with no drop-off in quality of play.

                  You're also ignoring the social dynamics of having ten players with equally distributed roles and responsibilities. That doesn't happen. Human nature demands that in any grouping of people there will be a hierarchy.

                  2. An effective strategy to emphasize the team sport is to actively recruit capable players that do not demand superstar salaries, AND PLAY THEM. In this scenario, a roster approach of two lines is preferable to a substitution approach. The reason this approach makes sense (taking a lesson from hockey) is that the team is more important than any one player. But some players play better with each other than others; it is their synergy and what they create together that is more important than their individual talent. Sympathetically, groups of players create their own personalities; the Goon squad on the Pacers before they disbanded is a good example. But in hockey there are better ones, where this phenomenon of team sports is not only appreciated but nurtured line by line.
                  This line approach has been used a lot in the league to varying degrees of success. It depends more on the personnel present on the team and whether that approach fits with their style of play.

                  The explicit challenge to the opponent is that they need to match your intensity the entire game, or risk collapse by the fourth quarter. Said another way, the team is betting their second line is better than that of the other team, if the opponent chooses to respond to their tiredness by playing their bench.

                  Conclusion
                  It is possible to win the NBA with a team approach despite the marketing efforts of the NBA and ESPN. The Pacers are much closer than they think. They just need to ignore the hype and believe they can do it.
                  Isn't this the Denver Nuggets strategy? Forty-eight minutes isn't enough time to take advantage of superstar player's fatigue, especially in the playoffs when there are no back to backs. LeBron could play 48 minutes a game for the entire playoffs and not wear down.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Basketball - an alternate strategy

                    Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                    So since we've been competitive in a series in which Rose has dominated, that somehow means we can win without a superstar?

                    What examples beside the Pistons (who were absolutely loaded) of a few years back can anyone give me of this theory.

                    It's much harder to build a championship team without a super star. So I'm not sure why anyone would want to try it.



                    They are and they are getting waxed.

                    We are actually the closest thing to that besides them, and we are down 3-1 as well.
                    Lakers and Celtics

                    Yes, they both have a ton of talent, but the ultimate difference between them and a team like the Heat, LeBron Cavs, and AI 76ers is they do in fact play as teams. It is more rare to find a team that only wins because of one or two players, than teams that win because they play as a team. The difference between superstars like AI and superstars like Kobe is the understanding that the game is a team game that cannot be dominated by only one or two guys. Everyone has to be involved in order to win it all.

                    There is a difference between winning because of a superstar, and a winning team who has a superstar on it. The reason you rarely see teams without a superstar is because the best player is the difference between the teams that play as teams, but before those superstars have a chance to win they first need to be on a team that plays as a team. There is a reason why you don't see teams win championships that have one dominate player.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Basketball - an alternate strategy

                      Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                      Lakers and Celtics

                      Yes, they both have a ton of talent, but the ultimate difference between them and a team like the Heat, LeBron Cavs, and AI 76ers is they do in fact play as teams. It is more rare to find a team that only wins because of one or two players, than teams that win because they play as a team. The difference between superstars like AI and superstars like Kobe is the understanding that the game is a team game that cannot be dominated by only one or two guys. Everyone has to be involved in order to win it all.

                      There is a difference between winning because of a superstar, and a winning team who has a superstar on it. The reason you rarely see teams without a superstar is because the best player is the difference between the teams that play as teams, but before those superstars have a chance to win they first need to be on a team that plays as a team. There is a reason why you don't see teams win championships that have one dominate player.
                      The Lakers are the reason why it's so hard to win without one. They have the best one. And they have a ton of other talent as well and play as a team. But it takes a lot more than playing as a team to win. In a 5 man team, 1 special guy changes everything.

                      Kenny Smith made a great point the other night about the impact of superstar players. He talked about the effect they have on their team mates. Your superstar makes his team mates believe they have a legit shot to win. And mentality goes along way in sports.

                      The thread was trying to minimize the importance of superstars. You can't really use teams like the Lakers as an example. I mean, of course you have to play as a team to win the title. But you better be a hell of a team with great players.

                      Bottom line for me, Derrick Rose has dominated the series. Despite a valiant effort to stop that from happening.
                      "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Basketball - an alternate strategy

                        I can't say I agree.

                        Our bench has outplayed their bench by leaps and bounds. This was supposed to be a strength of Chicago not Indiana. The Pacers bench has outscored the Bulls' so called "Bench Mob" 128-84 through 4 games.

                        By all accounts, Danny Granger has outplayed Luol Deng.

                        Carlos Boozer has been the best PF in the series by a narrow margin but we've won that positional battle because Gibson has been outplayed.

                        Noah has obviously outplayed Hibbert but Foster has made major contributions to help offset that somewhat.

                        Paul George has been a revelation on the defensive end.

                        Yet we are down 3-1.

                        This is because they have the best player in the series.

                        You need to have team play. But in order to win over the long haul, you need to have team play in concert with having a superstar. The 2004 Pistons are constantly brought up as evidence that you can win without a superstar. But they are far more the exception than the rule. And while they may not have had a true superstar, they did have 4 All-Stars in Chauncey Billups, Rip Hamilton, Rasheed Wallace, and Ben Wallace. Tayshaun Prince was an All-Defensive team mainstay and an Olympic gold medalist. Not exactly Hickory High.

                        Team play is great. And necessary. But so is having a superstar. That has been the difference in this series. Until we have one, it will be the difference in all future series.
                        "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                        -Lance Stephenson

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Basketball - an alternate strategy

                          1. The Bulls aren't as good a team as the regular season format
                          made them look.

                          2. Memphis isn't beating a 'team full of superstars' (Duncan is no
                          longer one and Parker and Ginobli, while 'stars' to a certain degree,
                          have never been 'superstars').

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Basketball - an alternate strategy

                            This was a nice theory but winning a championship without a superstar or as I like to call it, "a MVP caliber player", is nearly impossible.

                            You can probably win against a superstar lead team every now and then and maybe even win a series in the playoffs but unless you have 4 All-Stars on your squad that can defend better than any other team in the league (like the 2004 Pistons) you're not going to win a championship.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Basketball - an alternate strategy

                              This post, along with the responses, were fun to read.

                              The question in my mind is: what defines a superstar?

                              One of the replies indicated for example that Detroit was an example of a "superstar"-less team, yet they ultimately had four all-stars named from that team.

                              Are superstars born with superstar-dom? Can superstars emerge from people that don't come into the league being thought of as one?

                              Does superstar simply mean: a really really good player?

                              This whole debate hinges, in my humble opinion, on a label that is inherently ambiguous. My guess is that most people here agree on the basic "stuff" of a winning team more than is implied here.

                              If we're saying that to win a championship, you need a really, really good player leading the efforts... this seems like common sense.

                              Why can't this emerge from our existing team? Dwayne Wade emerged from his team?

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 template Next
                              Working...
                              X