NBA: Gold Medal Super Star Theory
 

Fonkey123 posted THIS ARTICLE in a recent NBA thread, but the thread got locked before we really had a chance to discuss it. I thought it'd make for an interesting topic of debate.

I guess what I find most interesting is how this would impact a team like Utah right now who has a ton of good young pieces, but it'd be a stretch to think that any of them will be gold medal superstars one day(obviously Boozer and Deron have an outside shot, but its unlikely). Does that mean that the Jazz should just look to trade them while their value is high and look to rebuild? That seems like a crazy thought for a young team that just came off the WCF.

But assume that the Jazz sign Boozer and Deron to long term deals and build around them. Assuming that they don't luck into another superstar, but also assuming that they can do a decent job of adding quality role players(and it looks like they already have quite a few pieces in place) then what odds do you give them of winning at least one title in the next 10 years?


Another interesting aspect of the article: Does this mean that you should never give a big contract to a star but not superstar player like Joe Johnson/Redd/R Lewis/etc.? I'm sure some would immediately say "yes, you should most definitely not overpay those 'good but not great' guys because their contracts will set your team back for years"....but play GM for a second- how then do you keep your fanbase happy? Do you just spend nothing and be terrible while rebuilding for years and years while hoping to finally draft that one true superstar?

102,677 and counting

Re: NBA: Gold Medal Super Star Theory
 

Derons pwns...that is all

LOL at anyone thinking Chris Paul is a better bball player

Re: NBA: Gold Medal Super Star Theory
 

we spoke about this a little bit, and the primary criticism (on my end) was that it is very matter of fact AFTER the fact. Ie, people become gold after they win, they dont become gold and THEN win. so it just so happens great players win championships-no kiddin

Re: NBA: Gold Medal Super Star Theory
 

Most champs have the superstars, Lakers, Spurs, etc, but the Pistons fit all the pieces together to win it all. I think the Jazz are hoping their stars improve, Kirilenko and Okur play great, and maybe get lucky one of these years and pick up an impact player, like the Pistons did with Rasheed. At the worst they are a "contender" and the fans are happy enough. Better that then rebuild and try to get the next Duncan or Lebron, IMO.

Re: NBA: Gold Medal Super Star Theory
 

As I said in the other thread, it's a dumb theory because the very criteria that he uses to decide who is a "gold medal superstar" are already biased in favor of players on great teams. Guys like Bryant, McGrady and Garnett have all played for lottery teams at one point and none of them received any MVP consideration during those respective seasons.

I could summarize the theory in three sentences. Every year that you're a great player on a great team, you get points. If you get enough points, I'll call you a "gold medal superstar." The only way you can be a great team is if you have at least one great player who plays for a great team. It's a tautology.

The Jazz are doing just fine, and if they win a title people will think of Deron Williams and Carlos Boozer as being in the upper echelon of NBA players (and honestly, I'm not sure that Boozer isn't up there already). I might give them a 25% chance of winning a title in the next five years, which is pretty good considering that they don't have a Tim Duncan (edit: and their chances of getting a guy like that by blowing up the team would be much less than 25%). 10 years is too long; there's no way to know whether Williams and Boozer will even be on the Jazz for that long.

Re: NBA: Gold Medal Super Star Theory
 

Thunder, thunder, thundercats, Ho! Thundercats are on the move, Thundercats are loose. Feel the magic, hear the roar, Thundercats are loose. Thunder, thunder, thunder, Thundercats! Thunder, thunder, thunder, Thundercats! Thunder, thunder, thunder, Thundercats! Thunder, thunder, thunder, Thundercats! Thundercats!

There's a voice that keeps on calling me. Down the road, that's where I'll always be. Every stop I make, I make a new friend. Can't stay for long, just turn around and I'm gone again. Maybe tomorrow, I'll want to settle down, Until tomorrow, I'll just keep moving on.

Ulysses, Ulysses - Soaring through all the galaxies. In search of Earth, flying in to the night. Ulysses, Ulysses - Fighting evil and tyranny, with all his power, and with all of his might. Ulysses - no-one else can do the things you do. Ulysses - like a bolt of thunder from the blue. Ulysses - always fighting all the evil forces bringing peace and justice to all.

Re: NBA: Gold Medal Super Star Theory
 

This is goingto be a rambling post be forewarned, it was a really long article, i skimmed a lot of it. First off, lol at Ben Wallace being the dominant player on that Pistons championship team.

The part where he talked about how the superstar factor affected the notion of basketball as a team sport was off too. This is the NBA, its not basketball. Its becoming more and more about the show, so its only natural that superstars will thrive. The only reason Dwayne Wade is even getting all that attention in his list is because the refs called 617348345 fouls for him in those finals.

But besides getting an inordinate amount of referee assistance, Dallas still helped them enormously. Even with Wade and Shaq Dallas should have won that year. This is I don't think its about the superstar at all, though it can help. Its about the team and the organization first. KG is a silver medalist while Duncan is a gold medalist for one reason only, the organization he ended up with. I have no doubt the Spurs would have been just as dominant with him as without, they are managed and coached too damn well.

This is the problem with his ranking system, he's not rating potential, he's rating results. Should you pass on KG because he's not a gold medal superstar? Seems dumb he easily could have been, given the right set of circumstances. You see what I'm saying? If GMs followed this guy's advice, they would almost always pass on the young up and comer, or the superstar who couldn't quite go the distance, for the proven winner. I'm not sure this is always correct. Shaq wasn't the key to that Miami championship Wade was, and they shouldn't have won anyway and haven't come close since. If you had the choice between Jordan or Bird in '86 who would you have taken? I can see the argument for Bird, but you would have been crucified 5 years later.

Utah is interesting. On paper, AK47 should be the superstar of this team, but for some reason he doesn't fit in. To trade Deron and Boozer at this point would be suicidal, just because in their second year on the team they haven't won 6 championships to become gold medal superstars. The problem is, if Boozer keeps putting up 30/10 for any extended period of time someone is going to offer him a max contract if you don't, and if he does end up being a gold medal superstar, leading some team to a bunch of championships, you are going to be left looking like an idiot for letting him go. The point is you can't tell. Any superstar, gold medal or not, has the potential to become gold medal in the right situation.

Which leads to the conclusion. The difference between gold and silver medalists is not the difference between the players but they respective organizations they ended up on. This is the key. Its about all the pieces, not just one. Coaching and role players are just as key. It should be gold and silver medal organizations. Thats why even if the Jazz got Kobe and built around him, they're still not beating the Spurs. There is nothing they can do. They are the gold medal organization. Its not just coaching and management. Its the players, fans, everything. All the pieces are in place.

Re: NBA: Gold Medal Super Star Theory
 

[ QUOTE ]
Derons pwns...that is all

LOL at anyone thinking Chris Paul is a better bball player

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, he is. deron has boozer, who does paul have? gtfo please, jk. in all seriousness paul put up better #'s than deron last season and also had better rookie numbers (granted he got fewer minutes as a rookie). deron williams just happened to get drafted by a better a team.

Re: NBA: Gold Medal Super Star Theory
 

btw, let me be clear that I am not saying the article is 100% accurate. I just wanted to discuss the situation of having a few good but not great players and whats the best course of action for a team in that position. The Jazz might have been a poor example due to Boozer/Deron's ability to turn out to be top level players.

102,507 and counting

Re: NBA: Gold Medal Super Star Theory
 

i would say that boozer/deron have little chance of becoming good enough to carry a team to a championship. deron has a better chance b/c he's younger, but neither of them are likely to be the key piece on a championship team. the gold medal players referenced in the article don't come around often enough for a gm to always be able to bail on current superstars who are good/great but not great enough to win a championship.

edit: in such a scenario i think the gm has to stick w/it and hope the team can overachieve.

Re: NBA: Gold Medal Super Star Theory
 

[ QUOTE ]
btw, let me be clear that I am not saying the article is 100% accurate. I just wanted to discuss the situation of having a few good but not great players and whats the best course of action for a team in that position. The Jazz might have been a poor example due to Boozer/Deron's ability to turn out to be top level players.

102,507 and counting

[/ QUOTE ]
It really depends on the state of the league. To beat a team like the Spurs you are going to need a guy like KG to shut down Duncan, but say if Phoenix was the team to beat you might need a different player/set of players. You might be able to get away with not having a superstar for the ages. The thing is even if a player is OK, they can become a superstar for the ages if they win enough. Lets say Detroit had won two or three in a row. Who's the superstar on that team? The article guy thought it was Ben Wallace which I thought was pretty laughable.

Re: NBA: Gold Medal Super Star Theory
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
btw, let me be clear that I am not saying the article is 100% accurate. I just wanted to discuss the situation of having a few good but not great players and whats the best course of action for a team in that position. The Jazz might have been a poor example due to Boozer/Deron's ability to turn out to be top level players.

102,507 and counting

[/ QUOTE ]
It really depends on the state of the league. To beat a team like the Spurs you are going to need a guy like KG to shut down Duncan, but say if Phoenix was the team to beat you might need a different player/set of players. You might be able to get away with not having a superstar for the ages. The thing is even if a player is OK, they can become a superstar for the ages if they win enough. Lets say Detroit had won two or three in a row. Who's the superstar on that team? The article guy thought it was Ben Wallace which I thought was pretty laughable.

[/ QUOTE ]

the argument against this is that detroit had very little chance of winning multiple championships and was very fortunate to win the first one.

Re: NBA: Gold Medal Super Star Theory
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
btw, let me be clear that I am not saying the article is 100% accurate. I just wanted to discuss the situation of having a few good but not great players and whats the best course of action for a team in that position. The Jazz might have been a poor example due to Boozer/Deron's ability to turn out to be top level players.

102,507 and counting

[/ QUOTE ]
It really depends on the state of the league. To beat a team like the Spurs you are going to need a guy like KG to shut down Duncan, but say if Phoenix was the team to beat you might need a different player/set of players. You might be able to get away with not having a superstar for the ages. The thing is even if a player is OK, they can become a superstar for the ages if they win enough. Lets say Detroit had won two or three in a row. Who's the superstar on that team? The article guy thought it was Ben Wallace which I thought was pretty laughable.

[/ QUOTE ]

the argument against this is that detroit had very little chance of winning multiple championships and was very fortunate to win the first one.

[/ QUOTE ]
But again this was due to the state of the league. What if the West was as pathetic as the East? Simmons had an article, and I don't quite remember the details, but I think the gist was Jordan got incredibly lucky in his reign that teams weren't built around a dominant big man like the Lakers of a few years back or Celtics of the 80s.

Re: NBA: Gold Medal Super Star Theory
 

[ QUOTE ]
the argument against this is that detroit had very little chance of winning multiple championships and was very fortunate to win the first one.

[/ QUOTE ]

A team that took the Spurs to Game 7 in the Finals had "very little chance" of winning another championship? Nah. Between the time they traded for Rasheed in 2004 until Ben really started to decline in 2006, that team was incredible. They're underrated by basically everyone, for the most part because they don't fit with people's preconceived notions of what it takes to win an NBA title, so people downgrade those Pistons with revisionist history. I'm tired of the tall tales about how Kobe sabotaged the Lakers when the reality is that those Lakers were a very good team (who would've been considered an all-time great team, had they won those Finals) and the Pistons just came in there and flat-out kicked their asses.

Re: NBA: Gold Medal Super Star Theory
 

Here's the 2nd half of the article as well http://www.nbadraft.net/mcchesney002.asp

Semtex, I think KG is on pace to be a Gold Medal superstar; however, between the who wold you rather have KG or Duncan?

I think the article is more food for thought then an extensive analysis of the situation; however, for the most part it holds true.

That article was posted at the beginning of last year, and gasp look who won the title again.

And Billy, I don't understand why you say people on bad teams don't get MVP votes. Tracy McGrady is 43rd on the list, and he hasn't been out of the first round yet, and the magic were terrible for years.

I would also venture to guess if Boozer averages (30 and 10 lol) and the Jazz continue to have good regular seasons he'll get a lot of MVP consideration. Also he factors in first team nba votes. Even if you're on an absolutely terrible team you'll get first/2nd team all team nba votes.

Of teh current players LeBron, KG, Kobe, AI, Kidd, Nash, Nowitzki are the only ones who even have a shot at GMS with Shaq and Duncan already being GMS's. This article was posted at the beginning of last year, so not sure if any of the 04 class got serious mvp consideration or all team nba votes without looking.

With that list you then look at supporting casts. LeBron has 0 chance, kobe has 0 chance, Shaq as well because he's so old.

So there's your short list of possible NBA Championship Winners.

Mavs, Celts, Nets, Spurs, Suns, Nuggets.

Re: NBA: Gold Medal Super Star Theory
 

Conclusion: Case Closed

Put another way, in the past 50 years there have been 200 final four teams that have made it to the conference finals in the NBA:

-- 26 of those 200 teams -- a measly 13 percent -- have been led by a player not on the list of top 84 players, and only one of those 26 advanced, where it then lost in the finals.

-- 25 of those 200 teams --12 percent --have been led by Bronze Medal Superstars; i.e. players ranked between 53 and 83 on the best players list. They produced only two of the past 50 NBA champions: Seattle 79 and Detroit 04.

-- 41 of those 200 teams -- 20 percent -- have been led by Silver Medal Superstars; i.e. players ranked 21-52 on the best players list. They produced eight of the past 50 NBA championships.

-- 108 of those 200 final four NBA teams -- 54 -- percent have been led by one of the 20 best players in NBA history based upon regular season performance. These players led 40 of the 50 past NBA championship teams. Nine of the top 20 players were multiple champions and these 9 players accounted for 36 of the past 50 NBA titles, or nearly three-quarters of all NBA championships.

-- 44 of 50 NBA champions had at least two players from the top 84 list in their starting line-up or serious rotation.

-- 19 of 50 NBA champions had at least three players from this list in their starting line-ups or serious rotation.

-- 12 of 50 NBA champions had at least four players from this list in their starting line-ups or serious rotation.

-- 5 of 50 NBA champions had fully five players from this list in their starting line-ups or serious rotation. (Who are these dynamos? Celtics in 86, 63, 61, 60, 59.)

The evidence is now overwhelming: teams need Gold Medal Superstars to win titles, or, with a great deal of luck, two Silver Medal Superstars. If a team does not have a Gold Medal Superstar, or someone on the way to becoming a Gold Medal Superstar, and at least two top 84 caliber players, or two players en route to joining the top 84 club on its roster, it has little chance of winning an NBA title.

This radically alters the perception of who the legitimate contenders are for an NBA titles, and what a smart GM should do if he is serious about winning a title. That will be the subject of my next article, which will appear in the next two weeks.

Re: NBA: Gold Medal Super Star Theory
 

And, the art of building a championship team.

http://www.nbadraft.net/mcchesney003.asp

http://www.nbadraft.net/mcchesney004.asp

I haven't read these articles yet but I will do after exam.

This pretty much addresses Asani's question.

Re: NBA: Gold Medal Super Star Theory
 

Actually, I couldn't wait and read the second article in my last post. Just read that one Assani [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Okay, my last post. Seriously this guy is like [censored] nostradamus. I can count the number of predictions he's missed on one hand. Keep in mind this was written at the beginning of LAST year.

Ainge accumulated talent, realized he wouldn't win a championship with Pierce in his prime NOW, and pulled the trigger on silver medal superstar KG (who can become GMS) by trading away the pieces he accumulated.

Few teams think like this, as far as I can tell. Or at least few fans and fewer pundits. Consider the Boston Celtics, the team I follow. The fans there are desperate, as is star player Paul Pierce, to have a winner, to see basketball in May, not to mention June. Danny Ainge has done a nice job of assembling many talented young players, though it is unlikely there are any Gold Medal Superstars in the mix. By all rights the team needs at least two seasons before it can be a 50 win team, and even that would be soon in view of the team’s youth. Pundits and Boston sportswriters almost universally implore Danny Ainge to trade away talented young players and draft choices so the team can fill needs with reliable veterans and win more in the near term. (See, for example: http://www.milforddailynews.com/spor...p;format=text) “You have to get good before you can get great, so the sooner you get good, the sooner you can get great,” the logic goes.

Danny’s dilemma is similar to that of many teams. He has drafted brilliantly and has a nice core, and if he trades one or two kids and no. 1 picks for vets and signs MLE free agents every year for 5 year $30 million deals, he can probably get a 50 win team. He’ll have the Boston sportswriters like Peter May hooting and hollering in excitement like a 12 year old boy watching his first porno film. But unless Al Jefferson or Gerald Green or Sebastian Telfair becomes a Gold Medal Superstar – highly unlikely, in my view – there is no chance of racking up a title in that approach.

Fortunately Danny has ignored them so far, because this approach would simply give short term improvement at the expense of stripping the team of valuable long-term assets and adding more salary to the payroll. This is what the pre-Ainge Celtics did when they traded, in effect, rookie Chauncey Billups, soon-to-be no. 1 pick Shawn Marion and rookie Joe Johnson in three idiotic trades for grizzled and mediocre veterans Kenny Anderson, Vitaly Potapenko and Rodney Rogers. The deals filled needs in the near term, made the team slightly better, and left the franchise a mess for years.

I believe Ainge actually gets it – he has accumulated draft choices, he has stockpiled talented young players with real market value for trades, and he looks to be clearing cap space for two of three years down the road if need be -- but he is under considerable pressure to produce right now. The truly gutsy thing for Ainge to do goes entirely against the grain of the conventional wisdom: it would be to trade away one or two of his more marketable young players, those he thinks have inflated value, for future no. 1 picks. The idea is not to tank, but to try to win with Pierce and the remaining kids and hope to use someone else’s lottery picks to locate a superstar. (As General Patton told the troops just before D-Day: You don’t become a hero by dying for your country. You become a hero by making the enemy die for his country.) And if it takes another year for the Celtics to escape the lottery, that is not the worst thing on earth if the young players are playing and developing. Especially in 2007.

To do this would take guts. It would require smart and brave owners. It would involve tremendous risk and possibly leave the team weaker in the near term and even in the long term. Peter May would go on a hunger strike until Ainge was fired. But is would also open the possibility for the Celtics to get the sort of player who can lead this team to the finals, and to victory. Unless Ainge is willing to take risks like these, I don’t see how the fine young team he is assembling plays basketball in June. Not with Mr. James and Mr. Wade and Mr. Howard and the Bulls holding forth in the eastern conference for the next decade.

Re: NBA: Gold Medal Super Star Theory
 

[ QUOTE ]
we spoke about this a little bit, and the primary criticism (on my end) was that it is very matter of fact AFTER the fact. Ie, people become gold after they win, they dont become gold and THEN win. so it just so happens great players win championships-no kiddin

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. It's like dosage in horseracing. People apply a number which relates to chances of winning the Kentucky Derby. It's based on your blood lines. But, if you win the Derby, they retroactively change the numbers for your parents/grandparents in light of this "new informatin", so it ends up being self-fulfilling.

KG isn't gold medal, but will be if he wins. Then the next article will be like "duh, he was a GMSS, of course they could win".

I mean, great players win championships in a sport with only 5 players on the floor at once and they all play both offense and defense. Duh. Nothing to see here.

Re: NBA: Gold Medal Super Star Theory
 

Since the basketball playoffs are so low variance there are very few teams who can contend for the title. This will create a lot of good teams, like Utah who have no real shot of winning a championship without a large improvement. It's not an issue of GMSS it's that in most given years there are like 3-5 teams that combined have like a 90% chance of winning the title.

Re: NBA: Gold Medal Super Star Theory
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
we spoke about this a little bit, and the primary criticism (on my end) was that it is very matter of fact AFTER the fact. Ie, people become gold after they win, they dont become gold and THEN win. so it just so happens great players win championships-no kiddin

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. It's like dosage in horseracing. People apply a number which relates to chances of winning the Kentucky Derby. It's based on your blood lines. But, if you win the Derby, they retroactively change the numbers for your parents/grandparents in light of this "new informatin", so it ends up being self-fulfilling.

KG isn't gold medal, but will be if he wins. Then the next article will be like "duh, he was a GMSS, of course they could win".

I mean, great players win championships in a sport with only 5 players on the floor at once and they all play both offense and defense. Duh. Nothing to see here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand the theory behind this post, but KG can become a GMS without winning an NBA title.

[ QUOTE ]
Since the basketball playoffs are so low variance there are very few teams who can contend for the title. This will create a lot of good teams, like Utah who have no real shot of winning a championship without a large improvement. It's not an issue of GMSS it's that in most given years there are like 3-5 teams that combined have like a 90% chance of winning the title.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those 3-5 teams are the ones with Gold Medal Superstars. Also clear your inbox, yo! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: NBA: Gold Medal Super Star Theory
 

How does this thread have so many replies? Is there really any debate that superstars are the driving force behind most Championship teams?

Re: NBA: Gold Medal Super Star Theory
 

The pistons won more than one title without anyone who was considered a superduperstar at that point, and I don't think anyone on that roster would even be considered one now. You could also argue that the old bad boy pistons were a bunch of well abover average players... I don't think Thomas qualifies as a super-duper-star by todays standards. Also, most of the teams who have championships in the last two decades that I would actually know something about had a superstar AND an above average supporting cast... there have just been some stacked teams in recent history.

Re: NBA: Gold Medal Super Star Theory
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the argument against this is that detroit had very little chance of winning multiple championships and was very fortunate to win the first one.

[/ QUOTE ]

A team that took the Spurs to Game 7 in the Finals had "very little chance" of winning another championship? Nah. Between the time they traded for Rasheed in 2004 until Ben really started to decline in 2006, that team was incredible. They're underrated by basically everyone, for the most part because they don't fit with people's preconceived notions of what it takes to win an NBA title, so people downgrade those Pistons with revisionist history. I'm tired of the tall tales about how Kobe sabotaged the Lakers when the reality is that those Lakers were a very good team (who would've been considered an all-time great team, had they won those Finals) and the Pistons just came in there and flat-out kicked their asses.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes they had very little chance of winning again, think about how many teams get that close and never get back. you can say until such and such started happening-- the aging of ben wallace was always a problem they faced. that team overachieved and had two great years. kudos to them for it, but they were fortunate to win the first one. i'm not saying detroit didn't deserve to win; they earned it by outplaying the lakers,but they lose to a dysfunctional lakers squad ~75% of the time. even if you want to call detroit an exception that still fits into my previous point that a gm shouldn't be trying to unload his roster just b/c he doesn't have an elite level player. sometimes things can fall into place and teams get lucky.

Re: NBA: Gold Medal Super Star Theory
 

The Pistons beat the Lakers 5 games to none. They followed it up with a 7-game coinflip with the Spurs. Suggesting they were lucky is really disingenuous I think.

Re: NBA: Gold Medal Super Star Theory
 

Fonkey,
PMs cleared.

Re: NBA: Gold Medal Super Star Theory
 

"This radically alters the perception of who the legitimate contenders are for an NBA titles,"

Yes, prior to this ground breaking analysis most people thought bad players were the key. Now with this radical "good players=victory" data set all the teams clearing cap space to go after Smush Parker and Micheal Ruffin will have to reprioritize.

Re: NBA: Gold Medal Super Star Theory
 

Methodology flawed, conclusions self-evident.

Re: NBA: Gold Medal Super Star Theory
 

[ QUOTE ]
Methodology flawed, conclusions self-evident.

[/ QUOTE ]
its also incredibly self serving

Re: NBA: Gold Medal Super Star Theory
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Derons pwns...that is all

LOL at anyone thinking Chris Paul is a better bball player

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, he is. deron has boozer, who does paul have? gtfo please, jk. in all seriousness paul put up better #'s than deron last season and also had better rookie numbers (granted he got fewer minutes as a rookie). deron williams just happened to get drafted by a better a team.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is such a stupid argument. they are both outstanding point guards and have the potential to be perennial all-stars. saying one is without a doubt better than the other at this point is pretty ridiculous imo.

Re: NBA: Gold Medal Super Star Theory
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
btw, let me be clear that I am not saying the article is 100% accurate. I just wanted to discuss the situation of having a few good but not great players and whats the best course of action for a team in that position. The Jazz might have been a poor example due to Boozer/Deron's ability to turn out to be top level players.

102,507 and counting

[/ QUOTE ]
It really depends on the state of the league. To beat a team like the Spurs you are going to need a guy like KG to shut down Duncan, but say if Phoenix was the team to beat you might need a different player/set of players. You might be able to get away with not having a superstar for the ages. The thing is even if a player is OK, they can become a superstar for the ages if they win enough. Lets say Detroit had won two or three in a row. Who's the superstar on that team? The article guy thought it was Ben Wallace which I thought was pretty laughable.

[/ QUOTE ]

the argument against this is that detroit had very little chance of winning multiple championships and was very fortunate to win the first one.

[/ QUOTE ]
But again this was due to the state of the league. What if the West was as pathetic as the East? Simmons had an article, and I don't quite remember the details, but I think the gist was Jordan got incredibly lucky in his reign that teams weren't built around a dominant big man like the Lakers of a few years back or Celtics of the 80s.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, cause Jordan didnt have to go through Patrick Ewing and the Knicks every year in his first 3 year run. And I wouldnt exactly call the Celts of the 80s built around a dominant big man. They had 2 really good big men, but Bird was the heart and soul of that team.

Also, I think the really good teams force you to play their style of ball. I dont think teams should be built in response to how the top teams of the time are playing, they should be built to be the best team they can be and dictate the style of ball that is played instead of trying to beat another team at their own game.

Re: NBA: Gold Medal Super Star Theory
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
btw, let me be clear that I am not saying the article is 100% accurate. I just wanted to discuss the situation of having a few good but not great players and whats the best course of action for a team in that position. The Jazz might have been a poor example due to Boozer/Deron's ability to turn out to be top level players.

102,507 and counting

[/ QUOTE ]
It really depends on the state of the league. To beat a team like the Spurs you are going to need a guy like KG to shut down Duncan, but say if Phoenix was the team to beat you might need a different player/set of players. You might be able to get away with not having a superstar for the ages. The thing is even if a player is OK, they can become a superstar for the ages if they win enough. Lets say Detroit had won two or three in a row. Who's the superstar on that team? The article guy thought it was Ben Wallace which I thought was pretty laughable.

[/ QUOTE ]

the argument against this is that detroit had very little chance of winning multiple championships and was very fortunate to win the first one.

[/ QUOTE ]
But again this was due to the state of the league. What if the West was as pathetic as the East? Simmons had an article, and I don't quite remember the details, but I think the gist was Jordan got incredibly lucky in his reign that teams weren't built around a dominant big man like the Lakers of a few years back or Celtics of the 80s.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, cause Jordan didnt have to go through Patrick Ewing and the Knicks every year in his first 3 year run. And I wouldnt exactly call the Celts of the 80s built around a dominant big man. They had 2 really good big men, but Bird was the heart and soul of that team.

Also, I think the really good teams force you to play their style of ball. I dont think teams should be built in response to how the top teams of the time are playing, they should be built to be the best team they can be and dictate the style of ball that is played instead of trying to beat another team at their own game.

[/ QUOTE ]
lol at patrick ewing = shaq

Re: NBA: Gold Medal Super Star Theory
 

Ewing could have won multiple championships if it wasnt for Jordan imo.

Re: NBA: Gold Medal Super Star Theory
 

I still don't get this whole self serving knock on the article. Have you guys looked at the actual list in the first article?

I'll now list ALL the Gold and Silver Medal Superstars that currently play

GMS
Duncan and Shaq (okay they both won championships but would still be up here without them)

SMS

Garnett- no championship
Kobe- piggy backed on shaq (self fufilling prophecy i'll give you guys this one)
Iverson- no championship
Kidd- no championship
Gary Payton- got one championship, but he didn't win the mvp on the Heat team so he got no bonus points for winning
Steve Nash- no championship
McGrady- no championship
Grant Hill- no championship
Nowitzki- no championship

BMS
Mourning- got his with shaq, but along with GP didn't win mvp in the champ series so gained nothing from winning
Webber- same scenario as with mourning and payton
LeBron James- no championship
Ben Wallace- 4 or 5 team DPOY don't think he won mvp on his championship team? I could be wrong here so i'll give you guys self fufilling on this one
Jermaine O'Neal- no championship

So there you have it. Of all the players currently known as superstars only 3 of them (at most) have probably gotten their rankings by self fufilling prophecies. I would even argue that Kobe always gets MVP votes, 1st team defense, and 1st team all nba votes, so he shouldn't count.

So, I would like you guys to explain to me how this is a self fufilling article when only a few people can possibly be pointed to as piggybacking to titles?

Re: NBA: Gold Medal Super Star Theory
 

[ QUOTE ]
So, I would like you guys to explain to me how this is a self fufilling article when only a few people can possibly be pointed to as piggybacking to titles?

[/ QUOTE ]

Was Shaq ranked as a GMS in 1999?

Re: NBA: Gold Medal Super Star Theory
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, I would like you guys to explain to me how this is a self fufilling article when only a few people can possibly be pointed to as piggybacking to titles?

[/ QUOTE ]

Was Shaq ranked as a GMS in 1999?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure if Shaq made the all nba first team 12 straight years, with a couple MVPs and never won an nba title he'd be a GMS, but I'll double check.

Re: NBA: Gold Medal Super Star Theory
 

I JUST LOOKED AT THE ARTICLE TO SEE HIS SCORING SYSTEM AND HE DOESN'T EVEN FACTOR IN NBA TITLES INTO THE SCORING SYSTEM!

"Who are the Best NBA Players of the Past 50 Years?

When I first made this argument in years past the response was that the reasoning I employed was circular: we determine who the best players in NBA history are by who wins the most titles, so of course the list of great players will also be the list of the best players on championship teams.

So the key was to come up with a list of who the best players are in NBA history that is done independent of success in the playoffs, and is based on regular season performance.

Fortunately there are two valuable tools that do that. First, is the annual voting for all-pro teams, done immediately after the regular season. Second is the annual voting for MVP, also done immediately after the season. The all-pro vote selects a first and second team, and a third team since 1989. The problem with the all-pro team is that it is selected by position, so great players, especially centers, may not make the first or even second team even if they are among the three or five best players in the league. But the best players in the league tend to make the all-NBA team on a regular basis. The MVP vote is better, since it simply goes for the best player that season, regardless of position. But the MVP vote is not quite comprehensive enough to do justice to the number of superb players in the league at any time, and many have argued that it is a bit too closely attached to how well a team plays in the regular season.

I combine these two measures to determine a list of the best players since 1956, when the NBA first held a vote for MVP. I have altered my calculations because several readers convinced me that the MVP award is more important than the all-NBA team votes.

So for every player I now give 10 points for winning the MVP, 8 points for finishing second in the vote, 6 point for third place, 4 points for fourth place and 2 points for fifth place. "

Re: NBA: Gold Medal Super Star Theory
 

[ QUOTE ]
I JUST LOOKED AT THE ARTICLE TO SEE HIS SCORING SYSTEM AND HE DOESN'T EVEN FACTOR IN NBA TITLES INTO THE SCORING SYSTEM!

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because it would make his logic even more circular than it already is.

Re: NBA: Gold Medal Super Star Theory
 

[ QUOTE ]
I JUST LOOKED AT THE ARTICLE TO SEE HIS SCORING SYSTEM AND HE DOESN'T EVEN FACTOR IN NBA TITLES INTO THE SCORING SYSTEM!


[/ QUOTE ]

umm obv, the point of the article is to show that you need atleast 1 or 2 all-nba players in order to win a championship.

Re: NBA: Gold Medal Super Star Theory
 

otherwise Robert Horry would be ranked top 5 imo