Linball

[YankeeFan]

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.

Exactly.

Five NBA players, playing in a well coached system can compete.

A team with a couple of superstars who are willing to buy into a team concept can win championships.

 

[RickStain]

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.

We're finding that out? Because they lost one NBA Final and some regular season games? It's a bit early for that sort of pronouncement, though you may be right.

 

[LongTimeListener]

I'm sure the Thunder are trying to trade Durant and Westbrook as we speak. I mean, really, who needs superstars?

Durant and Westbrook play winning basketball and have shown it. Carmelo Amthony, Amare Stoudemire and (soon) Baron Davis play losing basketball and have shown it.

 

[dreunc1542]

I'm sure the Thunder are trying to trade Durant and Westbrook as we speak. I mean, really, who needs superstars?

Durant and Westbrook play winning basketball and have shown it. Carmelo Amthony, Amare Stoudemire and (soon) Baron Davis play losing basketball and have shown it.

Well, Amare is no longer close to what he once was, and I don't even know why you would bring the current version of Baron Davis into a discussion about star players.

 

[LongTimeListener]

Because that is what the Knicks have chosen to cast their lot with.

 

[dreunc1542]

I'm not arguing that that's an issue. I'm arguing against the idea that having multiple star players is a bad thing.

 

[LongTimeListener]

I'm not arguing that that's an issue. I'm arguing against the idea that having multiple star players is a bad thing.

Your post:

1) Impllies that Kevin Durant + Russell Westbrook = Carmelo Anthony + Amare Stoudemire.

Or

2) Has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Choose one.

 

[Versatile]

Russell Westbrook is already better than Baron Davis ever was, for what it's worth. He's pretty close to being better than Amar'e Stoudemire ever has been.

 

[dreunc1542]

I'm not arguing that that's an issue. I'm arguing against the idea that having multiple star players is a bad thing.

Your post:

1) Impllies that Kevin Durant + Russell Westbrook = Carmelo Anthony + Amare Stoudemire.

Or

2) Has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Choose one.

Did you not see the part of the discussion that moved well beyond talking about the Knicks and talking about whether multiple stars are needed for a championship team? That's been a major part of the past few pages.

I don't see why this is difficult for you to follow.

 

[Dick Whitman]

I'm not arguing that that's an issue. I'm arguing against the idea that having multiple star players is a bad thing.

It definitely can be - particularly when you factor in the salary cap issues.

In these sports where there is only one ball for everyone - pretty much football and basketball and not hockey and baseball - chemistry is a really big component of winning games. I guess when you reduce it to its essence, my point was merely this: The notion that the Heat were automatically going to dominate the NBA because it is a "superstar" league has not played out that way. In hindsight, it was a grossly oversimplified analysis of how to win NBA basketball games. Stars, even multiple stars, are a necessary component of a championship NBA team. But they are not a sufficient component. And I think a lot of people thought the latter two summers ago.

Back to the Knicks: It's funny now to think back to the debates that occurred when LeBron and Camelo went 1-2 in the Draft. There were people out there, with straight faces, who lobbied for Carmelo to go No. 1 because he was already a proven "winner."

 

[LongTimeListener]

No. 1 and 2? deck, why hath thou forsaken Darko? The Pistons drafted him and immediately won the championship.

 

[Versatile]

Back to the Knicks: It's funny now to think back to the debates that occurred when LeBron and Camelo went 1-2 in the Draft. There were people out there, with straight faces, who lobbied for Carmelo to go No. 1 because he was already a proven "winner."

The people who wanted to pick Carmelo Anthony ahead of LeBron James were people who inherently hated high school players because Kwame Brown was terrible. That's it. And Anthony was taken third.