• Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Linball

deck Whitman said:
JC said:
deck Whitman said:
Piotr Rasputin said:
deck Whitman said:
Piotr Rasputin said:
deck Whitman said:
For the last few years, I have been told constantly that it is a "star league," and that you "win with superstars."

Between the Miami Smoke Machine and the Knicks, along with watching the Bulls win some nights with five guys from my high school's team, I am starting to wonder how true that really is.

Did the NBA regular season start to mean something? Did I miss this?

It does when it confirms what we saw in last year's playoffs. It does when the regular season might leave the Knicks out of the playoffs - or with an 8 seed and a one-way ticket back to New York in four games.

That same thing happened last year.

And what does it "confirm" when the Bulls beat the Heat?

Miami's continued lack of anything resembling a killer instinct in big games.
Is this the same Miami team that took care of those Bulls in the playoffs last year?

How did they fare against the Mavs?
Which has what to do with you using the Bulls as an example?

If there is any superstar that is willing to fit into a team concept it's Lebron. When he does this he gets shirt on for not taking the last shot, even if he's double teamed and makes the smart basketball play.
 
I'm sure the Thunder are trying to trade Durant and Westbrook as we speak. I mean, really, who needs superstars?
 
dreunc1542 said:
I'm sure the Thunder are trying to trade Durant and Westbrook as we speak. I mean, really, who needs superstars?

Is Westbrook a superstar?

I think I qualified the argument enough, and acknowledged the Shaq-Kobe pairing. But I think it takes a special kind of coach to get these fantasy basketball rosters to be as much as the sum of their parts.

I think you win with a superstar in the NBA. But I think that the idea that you can win with two or three superstars and the cast of "Hoosiers" is mostly not true. It's not that simple. That's all.
 
deck Whitman said:
dreunc1542 said:
I'm sure the Thunder are trying to trade Durant and Westbrook as we speak. I mean, really, who needs superstars?

Is Westbrook a superstar?

I think I qualified the argument enough, and acknowledged the Shaq-Kobe pairing. But I think it takes a special kind of coach to get these fantasy basketball rosters to be as much as the sum of their parts.

I think you win with a superstar in the NBA. But I think that the idea that you can win with two or three superstars and the cast of "Hoosiers" is mostly not true. It's not that simple. That's all.
The coaching aspect is a good point. That is what made Phil Jackson great. The ability for stars to buy in.
 
When's the last time a team without a top-5 player won an NBA championship?

I'm sure someone will argue last year's Mavs count, but if Dirk isn't top-5, it's close.

2004 Detroit is the only one in my lifetime, I know that much.
 
I'd say the Mavs won last year without what some would describe as a "superstar." Dirk is as much a superstar as Tim Duncan. They are superstars only in the sense that their play is so good in what they do. They are true superstars to me, someone who's talent for what they do is mind-blowing, and its a talent that helps his team win. The Mavs ran their plays over and over again last year and their repetition was numbing at times but they ran it so well.

I hate the fake superstars; 'Melo, Amare, McGrady, Marbury, Carter. Their skills are mind-blowing but it does/did not translate into helping the team win.

The times I do get to watch the Pacers, I love that they run plays and execute them. I bet you they are one of the best in the league at offensive execution. That makes up somewhat for talent.
 
As for the Knicks killing Linsanity, serves them right and I hope those clowns rooting for Amare and 'Melo love watching their team go down the drain and into the history books with the other "paper" championship teams.
 
RickStain said:
When's the last time a team without a top-5 player won an NBA championship?

I'm sure someone will argue last year's Mavs count, but if Dirk isn't top-5, it's close.

2004 Detroit is the only one in my lifetime, I know that much.

Again: You need a superstar. I just don't think that stockpiling them is the panacea that people think it is. I think there are big-time diminishing returns. Remember, when the Smoke Machine was put together, all we heard was that it was a "star league," and it didn't matter that their supporting cast would be cobbled together. We're finding out that it does matter.
 
This is kind of a silly debate.

Good basketball wins championships. It kind of stands to reason that better players playing good basketball will tend to win more championships.
 
qtlaw said:
As for the Knicks killing Linsanity, serves them right and I hope those clowns rooting for Amare and 'Melo love watching their team go down the drain and into the history books with the other "paper" championship teams.
It is a heck of a lot more complicated than simply starting and playing Lin. As if by playing Lin will cure all the Knicks ills. Look at the Knicks schedule through the "Linsanity".
 
The Big Ragu said:
This is kind of a silly debate.

Good basketball wins championships. It kind of stands to reason that better players playing good basketball will tend to win more championships.

I think most realized that The Knicks of Linball were a
good basketball TEAM that likely would not win a championship.

They also realized that Amare and Anthony were better individual players and hoped that they could bring the Linball team to point where they could win a championship. We found the answer in a short order.

I do think that if it was just Amare it would be fine. Anthony is the killer.
 
JC said:
qtlaw said:
As for the Knicks killing Linsanity, serves them right and I hope those clowns rooting for Amare and 'Melo love watching their team go down the drain and into the history books with the other "paper" championship teams.
It is a heck of a lot more complicated than simply starting and playing Lin. As if by playing Lin will cure all the Knicks ills. Look at the Knicks schedule through the "Linsanity".

Look at their schedule and record, pre Linsanity. It's not like they weren't beating up on the NBA before he showed up in the starting line up.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top