NBA: Gold Medal Super Star Theory

[areyouthedrizzle]

[ 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.

[Semtex]

[ 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

[areyouthedrizzle]

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

[Fonkey123]

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?

[mmbt0ne]

[ 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?

[Fonkey123]

[ 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.

[Fonkey123]

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. "

[Number27]

[ 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.

[areyouthedrizzle]

[ 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.

[areyouthedrizzle]

otherwise Robert Horry would be ranked top 5 imo