Hey guys hope all is well, I been thinking lately how bad does a team need a superstar? I mean we see teams that have players such as Kyrie or Carmello but theyre still mediocre teams. A team like the nuggets without a superstar seem to be making strides but it showed in the playoffs the need for one. My question is does a team really need a superstar, legit scorer, or something else?
There are three superstars in the league, Durant, Lebron and Paul George. The rest are all stars. If you have just all stars like we do then you need at least two of them, preferably three.
If you don't have a "go to" guy or two, you had better have lots and LOTS of very good role players. The Pistons are the last team I can remember that was winning without a true "traditional" star player, and one could argue that Billups was that guy. So is it harder to find those one or two "go to" guys or six or seven very good players? Considering the teams that have won rings in the last few decades it would suggest you need stars.
In the NBA you don't need one superstar you need at least two. Makes what Hakeem did even more amazing that 93-94 Championship run.
all stars get all star calls. you dont have to look any further than Houston vs dallas a few years back when we had no superstar and dirk was getting tick tack fouls for somebody breathing on him and him flailing like somebody hit him with a hammer. this league is geared towards highlighting the star players and keeping their team in the games. its a shame, really.
Everyone here's played basketball and knows that there are some players who step on the court and are just plain out better than everyone else. They own the game. Same thing in the park. Same thing in high school. Same thing in college. Same thing in the NBA. Doesn't mean that they are absolutely necessary but having great players who dominate a game like that make things easier.
Fun fact, in 2004, Only Ben Wallace was selected as an All-Star for the Pistons. Rasheed (still a Blazer/Hawk), Rip, and Chauncey were not all-stars. I would say for the most part you do need a Superstar to win a title. On rare occasions do you see a team like the Pistons defy the rules.
Yep. That was the epitome of team ball. I still think Chauncey was their go to guy, but not exclusively. That was a fun team to watch.
One Championship team in 33 years didn't have a top 5 player. If Portland or GS want to use the 04 Pistons as inspiration, good for them. Me, I'm glad we have Harden and Dwight.
I understand if you were to make a list of 3 top guys why Lebron and Durant would be on it. But, George? He's head-and-shoulders above everyone else?
I don't think you actually *need* a Superstar, but it helps tremendously. Just are not required to have 2 or even 3 All Star caliber talents, but it sure makes life easier. Basketball has one of the smallest rosters of the major team games. The end result of this is that individual performance has an very high impact on team performance. That doesn't mean that you still don't need a solid team of the right pieces surrounding that player (Lebron Cavs is a good example). Nor does it mean that you can throw any old group of Stars together (Kobe/Dwight and Amare/Melo are good examples). Just like any team sport, chemistry and fit can not be ignored. However, the talent gaps between the "best" and the rest is so substantial that it makes it very difficult to achieve a high level of sustained performance without have 1 or more "stars" on the team. In terms of difficulty, from a theoretical point of view it's simply easier to construct a team of pieces that optimize a single star, than to construct a team that optimizes an entire roster. Finding 5 players that are complementary and maximize each other is inherently more difficult than finding 4 players that are complementary and maximize as single star player, if you get what I'm saying. So no, you are not required to have a Star, but you would require a very high level of decision making and a lot of luck to put together an entire roster of players that fit together like a flawless machine. Compare this to putting Wade, Bosh and Lebron together. They don't fit ideally in terms of play style, but their individual talent level is so high that they don't have to perfectly together to still be highly competitive. Even 90% of Lebron, Wade and Bosh is better than the vast majority of NBA teams with basic complimentary pieces. And even if you had the perfect team of complimentary pieces, you'd still want a positional upgrade any time you could get one. Do we really believe that the Pistons wouldn't trade someone on that 2004 team for a Star that could fit on their team and serve a similar role at a higher level? You take the upgrades where you can get them.
I'm glad we have Harden and Dwight too. Not sure they are top five players. Dwight used to be one and Harden might become one if he starts to defend consistently. The Isaiah-led Pistons didn't have a top-five player either. Isaiah has always been way overrated. In his best years, he was a legitimate all star. But he only had a few of those years. And he was never a top-five player.
