NBA: Gold Medal Super Star Theory

[ClarkNasty]

[ 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.

[Pudge714]

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.

[Fonkey123]

[ 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]

[IrishHand]

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

[anatta]

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.

[TheNoodleMan]

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.

[Semtex]

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.

[ggbman]

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.

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Career averages of 19.2 points(65th highest in NBA history), 1.9 steals(22nd highest average in NBA history) and 9.3 assists(4th highest average in NBA history) aren't bad at all. He was also an 11 time all star.

102,455 and counting

[Jack of Arcades]

Methodology flawed, conclusions self-evident.