Systems/teams that are together a while win decently in reg season without the star

[3ball]

See the current Raptors, Duncan's Spurs, the 90's Bulls, and even the warriors without Curry weren't doormats

otoh, we see that guys who team-hop don't have time to develop chemistry and win based on talent, so they fall off when they lose their biggest talent... :confusedshrug:

Additionally, we already know that teams who use the "floor general" or ball-dominator approach will fall off a lot without their ball-dominator (see Nash and CP3 teams in 12' and 13', or lebron's teams), while teams that move the ball will keep moving the ball without their star and fall off less..

TLDR: 1) teams/systems that have been together a while and 2) teams that use a ball movement approach over a ball-dominator/floor general approach fall of the least without their star

[ThiccBoi]

Man shut the **** up

[Ainosterhaspie]

Teams with depth of talent fall off less than teams that are top heavy when the star is out or gone.

[Turbo Slayer]

Teams with depth of talent fall off less than teams that are top heavy when the star is out or gone.
:applause:

[Rico2016]

Are you trying to plug holes into sinking ship that is MJ's legacy because I've had him #1 for a while but you're making things worse. Are you trying to cover up the '93 Bulls 57 wins with MJ and '94 Bulls 55 wins when MJ left? MJ was only worth 2 wins?!

[AirBonner]

MJ was only worth two wins :biggums: :biggums: :eek:

[3ball]

Teams with depth of talent fall off less than teams that are top heavy when the star is out or gone.
the data doesn't show that

the data shows that teams/systems that have been together a while and teams that don't rely on a big ball-dominator (they move the ball) fall off less than short-term collusions or ball-dominator teams

heck, the 90's Bulls were the most top-heavy team ever (biggest gap ever between the #1 and #2 options.. also the goat scoring burden plus weak-scoring at the 2 thru 12 options)

[Uncle Drew]

Moral of the story: teams that were stacked and lost only 1 piece of the puzzle don't do much worse. Whereas LeBron teams, which weren't stacked whatsoever, folded like a cheap tent. Yep, seems about right. Well done OP.

[3ball]

Moral of the story: teams that were stacked and lost only 1 piece of the puzzle don't do much worse. Whereas LeBron teams, which weren't stacked whatsoever, folded like a cheap tent. Yep, seems about right. Well done OP.
your theory relies on the factually false assumption in bold above, thereby nullifying your entire premise, and giving credence to the OP.... So thanks... :cheers:

[Detroit]

Are you trying to plug holes into sinking ship that is MJ's legacy because I've had him #1 for a while but you're making things worse. Are you trying to cover up the '93 Bulls 57 wins with MJ and '94 Bulls 55 wins when MJ left? MJ was only worth 2 wins?!

No, he's worth 2 championships.

91-93 with MJ = 3/3 chips
94-95 w/o MJ = 0/2 chips
96-98 with MJ = 3/3 chips

[Ainosterhaspie]

the data doesn't show that
:biggums: You think teams that don't have depth of talent are successful when the star is out?


the data shows that teams/systems that have been together a while and teams that don't rely on a big ball-dominator (they move the ball) fall off less than short-term collusions or ball-dominator teams

heck, the 90's Bulls were the most top-heavy team ever (biggest gap ever between the #1 and #2 options.. also the goat scoring burden plus weak-scoring at the 2 thru 12 options)
Depth of talent does not mean a bunch of superstars. You can have depth of talent with just one superstar, or even no superstar. See the 2004 Pistons.

Teams with quality depth tend to stay together because they have quality depth and don't need to look for more. (Unless someone leaves for a big payday). They also can share the ball because of quality depth. Teams without quality depth are constantly trying to find it and are more likely to lean more heavily on their best player, since the role players lack the requisite skill to maintain success.

You have cause and effect exactly backwards. In your world bad players are bad because the star made them bad. That is a convoluted answer that ignores the obvious, bad players are bad because they are bad.

[Rico2016]

Moral of the story: teams that were stacked and lost only 1 piece of the puzzle don't do much worse. Whereas LeBron teams, which weren't stacked whatsoever, folded like a cheap tent. Yep, seems about right. Well done OP.

Another 3ball dud. I am convinced he really is an elaborate troll and actually a pro LeBron stan because nearly every thread ends up exposing Jordan (his only competition for the #1 spot). He'll soon make a thread comparing Larry Hughes to Scottie Pippen, I just know it. Watch and see!

[3ball]

:biggums: You think teams that don't have depth of talent are successful when the star is out?


if they have an experienced system/teamwork, then heck yes, they can still be decent without the depth of talent

but regardless of that fact, you're missing the reality of how the game works...

None of the teams mentioned in the OP had depth of talent - they just had players that learned to play well in a winning system - an experienced system/teamwork CREATES depth of talent by turning ordinary role players into household names due to their consistent contributions in the winning spotlight.. :confusedshrug:

But the reality is that guys like Boris Diaw and Patty Mills don't make teams better more than any other role player.. They were simply lucky enough to land in a system that was winning, so their contributions were praised as superior to the same stat lines from role players on losing teams.





Depth of talent does not mean a bunch of superstars. You can have depth of talent with just one superstar, or even no superstar. See the 2004 Pistons.

Teams with quality depth tend to stay together because they have quality depth and don't need to look for more. (Unless someone leaves for a big payday). They also can share the ball because of quality depth. Teams without quality depth are constantly trying to find it and are more likely to lean more heavily on their best player, since the role players lack the requisite skill to maintain success.

You have cause and effect exactly backwards. In your world bad players are bad because the star made them bad. That is a convoluted answer that ignores the obvious, bad players are bad because they are bad.


Regardless of the reality that experienced systems/teamwork enhances a squad's perceived talent and good players, we can always argue whether a team has depth of talent to begin with, WITHOUT the system...

Lebron's teams clearly did, while MJ's casts were products of the system - heck MJ's teams had an actual system, while Lebron's teams mostly didn't (just bron-ball, aka ordinary/beatable cp3-ball but with better/colluded casts).

And no MJ didn't make Pippen bad.. Pippen was just bad but the system enhanced him - what did he do without the triangle?.. not a damn thing.. I rest my case