NBA: Gold Medal Super Star Theory

Assani Fisher · #1 11-02-2007, 02:39 AM

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

MyTurn2Raise · #2 11-02-2007, 02:52 AM

Derons pwns...that is all

LOL at anyone thinking Chris Paul is a better bball player

tarheeljks · #3 11-02-2007, 03:56 AM

[ 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.

Assani Fisher · #4 11-02-2007, 04:02 AM

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

tarheeljks · #5 11-02-2007, 04:08 AM

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.

Semtex · #6 11-02-2007, 04:10 AM

[ 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.

tarheeljks · #7 11-02-2007, 04:20 AM

[ 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.

areyouthedrizzle · #8 11-02-2007, 06:07 PM

[ 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.

BobboFitos · #9 11-02-2007, 02:53 AM

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

Billy Bibbit · #10 11-02-2007, 03:28 AM

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.