NBA: Gold Medal Super Star Theory

[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?

[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.

[tarheeljks]

[ 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.

[ClarkNasty]

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.

[Pudge714]

Fonkey,
PMs cleared.

[FlyWf]

"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.

[Jack of Arcades]

Methodology flawed, conclusions self-evident.

[Semtex]

[ QUOTE ]
Methodology flawed, conclusions self-evident.

[/ QUOTE ]
its also incredibly self serving

[areyouthedrizzle]

[ 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.