Teams win without their ‘stars’ a lot more than you’d think

[FultzNationRISE]

I put ‘stars’ in quotes because it mainly applies to regular stars, not generational titans like Lebron, Shaq, Jokic.

A couple examples of the last few years, albeit small sample sizes, are the Bucks winning playoff games without Giannis, and the Mavs winning a pair without Doncic. Of course we all know Kyrie’s teams win more without him across huge sample sizes. Going back further, Kobe’s teams generally showed no W-L difference when he played or not. I remember the Rockets had a record breaking win streak back in the day with Tmac missing all the games and I think Yao missing a good handful himself. The Nuggets traded Carmelo to the Knicks for role players and pretty soon the Nuggets were better than the Knicks. This is just off the top of my head but there are tons of other examples across small, medium, and large sample sizes.

The stars the media pumps up to sell jerseys do not make the impact people think they do. Over the course of a game, teams play 9, 10 guys. Very few players can mitigate an entire opposing team by themselves. The other team is full of elite professional athletes as well. When teams win, they are GOOD TEAMS. It’s not because one guy is summoning some mythical super hero power (except in Lebron’s case). That just makes a more compelling narrative so we use it.

Thats why it’s so weird to me that Jaylen Brown makes 300 million over the same time span Georges Niang will make 70 million. You need players like Niang as much as you need Brown. You need Pippen as much as you need Jordan.

But teams seem to evaluate guys based on their statistical production relative to other players on the same team’s roster. What they should be doing is evaluating a players production relative to opponents in the same role. Jaylen Brown is arguably not top 30 in his role. Not in the league, because theres guys in another set of roles just as important to winning who have their own hierarchy, but in his role he is arguably not top 30. And hes paid like a top 5 player in the game because people mistakenly see Brown’s role as being more integral to success than others. But the data says thats simply not true. It’s just a narrative that makes things easy for us to compartmentalize in our heads, including general managers.


I just know that if I was role players, Id be speaking up more about how disproportionately Kawhi gets paid to not even play basketball, just because people think his name on the jersey alone makes some kind of magical guarantee of success.

[90sgoat]

The stars the media pumps up to sell jerseys do not make the impact people think they do.

It's true and FIBA ball proves it. The impact of a single star just isn't what we're told.

We all remember the Spurs teams that went out there and competed in the playoffs with Kawhi, without Duncan. They were not as good, but they could definitely hang in there.

FIBA ball is just better to look at, because it becomes obvious the team is the star. Much less jarring than basically following one ball dominant guard and the team being along like in the NBA.

[tpols]

Shaq has been swept out of the playoffs more than any top 10 GOAT. Lebron has a big time losing Finals record by W/L and point differential. In fact, 2014 and 2018 were the biggest blowouts in Finals history.

I agree with Jokic though. He just doesn't have a weakness and plays perhaps the highest brand / IQ ball ever.

And obviously MJ who's record is impeccable. Shaq and Lebron don't win with a bed wetting Pippen in the late 90s. They probably don't win in the early 90s either because it's a garbage fit. You don't surround Shaq or lebron with non shooters. That's just a recipe for disaster and everybody knows it.

[FultzNationRISE]

Shaq has been swept out of the playoffs more than any top 10 GOAT. Lebron has a big time losing Finals record by W/L and point differential. In fact, 2014 and 2018 were the biggest blowouts in Finals history.

I agree with Jokic though. He just doesn't have a weakness and plays perhaps the highest brand / IQ ball ever.

And obviously MJ who's record is impeccable. Shaq and Lebron don't win with a bed wetting Pippen in the late 90s. They probably don't win in the early 90s either because it's a garbage fit. You don't surround Shaq or lebron with non shooters. That's just a recipe for disaster and everybody knows it.

Shaq’s late career skews his numbers obviously, and Lebron’s rosters wouldnt have made the 8th seed or won a single playoff game without him. Instead he took them to the Finals. Cmon now.

[tpols]

Also, ball dominant players force their team to rely on them too heavily. I bet the Thunder in Westbrook MVP year would've been a lotto team without him because he wasn't playing team basketball. He was taking it upon himself to do everything. So when you play like that youre actually not running a legit team ball movement based offense and you're dramatically lowering the team ceiling in the long run. OKC added paul george and didnt even get any better. Thats nuts. And why players like that need extra star talent to offset an inferior brand of ball essentially running a "checkers" system instead of chess.

[tpols]

Shaq’s late career skews his numbers obviously, and Lebron’s rosters wouldnt have made the 8th seed or won a single playoff game without him. Instead he took them to the Finals. Cmon now.

Shaq wasn't getting swept just when he was old. He was getting swept in the middle of his prime. Lebron has team hopped with star talent all over the league. Just because he was a poor fit with guys like Wade, Bosh, Love,etc. doesn't mean they sucked. Wade won a championship with less than Bosh, Ray, Birdman, Battier, Mike Miller etc. And you're sitting here acting like he couldn't make an 8 seed. That's preposterous. Old Wade made the 2nd round in 2016 with less help.

[FultzNationRISE]

Shaq wasn't getting swept just when he was old. He was getting swept in the middle of his prime. Lebron has team hopped with star talent all over the league. Just because he was a poor fit with guys like Wade, Bosh, Love,etc. doesn't mean they sucked. Wade won a championship with less than Bosh, Ray, Birdman, Battier, Mike Miller etc. And you're sitting here acting like he couldn't make an 8 seed. That's preposterous. Old Wade made the 2nd round in 2016 with less help.

This is irrelevant to my point, in fact being swept in the finals furthers my point. The Magic made the finals in 95 and the conference finals in 96 (losing to the MJ, Pippen, Rodman, Kukoc etc superteam). First year Shaq was gone they got bounced in the first round by some crap Pistons team or whoever. Also I'm quite sure the data on the Lakers' W-L with/without him was much more favorable than Kobe for instance. Prime Shaq was clearly a huge difference maker to the bottom line (wins/losses). The last year of his career he gave effort (in Miami) he won a championship. The following year he was basically playing retired and Miami sucked.

Anyway my point isnt even to argue whom the exceptions may be. Just that in general, even if you think it makes sense to pay Bradley Beal a lot of money in a vacuum because the cap is going up, it doesnt make sense to pay him so much more than his peers, like, say, Al Horford. If youre gonna spend a bunch of money because the cap is going up, you should be trying to spread it around a bunch of guys who are the best in their respective roles, not one guy who's borderline Top 30 in his role and figure you can just plug any old shmoe in the other 4 slots.

[iamgine]

Well Spurs hasn't won much since Kawhi left. And then they won even less when Derozan and Murray left.

[FultzNationRISE]

Well Spurs hasn't won much since Kawhi left. And then they won even less when Derozan and Murray left.

Sure they've ofc been investing less into 'win now' than when he was there, which is true for a lot of situations where a star leaves a team. But I'm talking mainly about situations within the same era, same supporting cast, where a player is on the court vs when he's not. Theres ample evidence to show teams GENERALLY see minimal drop off due to the absence of a single player. And it's not just because "they try harder when the best player is out" (altho if it's true theyre more engaged in that situation, there's an argument their 'star' is too ball dominant to begin with).

The reality is, ball dominant stars are just not the players you think they are. Donovan Mitchell just lost with a better cast and home court advantage, to Jalen Brunson (which I predicted in advance). The games in Utah where Mitchell 'went off' in the scoring column had people believing his true impact on the outcome was greater than it is. And that's really the case for most stars in this league. It's as simple as that.

[Xiao Yao You]

This is irrelevant to my point, in fact being swept in the finals furthers my point. The Magic made the finals in 95 and the conference finals in 96 (losing to the MJ, Pippen, Rodman, Kukoc etc superteam). First year Shaq was gone they got bounced in the first round by some crap Pistons team or whoever. Also I'm quite sure the data on the Lakers' W-L with/without him was much more favorable than Kobe for instance. Prime Shaq was clearly a huge difference maker to the bottom line (wins/losses). The last year of his career he gave effort (in Miami) he won a championship. The following year he was basically playing retired and Miami sucked.

Anyway my point isnt even to argue whom the exceptions may be. Just that in general, even if you think it makes sense to pay Bradley Beal a lot of money in a vacuum because the cap is going up, it doesnt make sense to pay him so much more than his peers, like, say, Al Horford. If youre gonna spend a bunch of money because the cap is going up, you should be trying to spread it around a bunch of guys who are the best in their respective roles, not one guy who's borderline Top 30 in his role and figure you can just plug any old shmoe in the other 4 slots.

Shaq was getting swept by the over the hill Jazz. Phil Jackson saved his career

[FultzNationRISE]

Shaq was getting swept by the over the hill Jazz. Phil Jackson saved his career

Again, you are misunderstanding my point.

I'm not saying he always made his teams better than the other teams. I'm saying he made his team much better than they'd be without him, to a greater extent than most players do.

[Im Still Ballin]

I somewhat agree. Kareem also missed the playoffs once or twice in the middle of his prime too. Was putting up like 29/16/5 with nearly 4 blocks on 52% FG over those two seasons.

[FultzNationRISE]

I somewhat agree. Kareem also missed the playoffs once or twice in the middle of his prime too. Was putting up like 29/16/5 with nearly 4 blocks on 52% FG over those two seasons.

Yep, actually you just brought someone up in another thread I meant to use as a core example in this post and forgot:

Ja Morant.

His teams have performed better without him on the court the last two seasons, thru a SIGNIFICANT sample size of games.

So like… what is the argument for him being a star from an impact standpoint? The team wins more without him than with him. I dont see what arguments or qualifiers can trump that. You can always “yeah but” things like game statistics, if a guy doesnt rebound well at his position, or scores less points but plays more minutes, etc, theres always some kinda qualifier to consider or way to compensate when youre talking about a statistical deficiency.

But how can you justify giving max salary to a player who concretely makes you win less?

Like these decisions make no sense. Players get paid more in this league for being flashy than for winning basketball games.

It’s the weird little secret nobody really talks about.

[iamgine]

Well when Jordan came back in '95 Bulls went from a 42 win team to 62 win team.

[FultzNationRISE]

Well when Jordan came back in '95 Bulls went from a 42 win team to 62 win team.

Didnt they win like 55 the year after he left?

And again, Im not even talking primarily about when a player leaves a team, because the era with him and the era without him are apples and oranges circumstances. Im talking about a period of time when he’s on the team but does or doesnt play. Most teams dont see nearly the drop off in wins when a star player sits with injury that most people would assume they do.

[Im Still Ballin]

Well when Jordan came back in '95 Bulls went from a 42 win team to 62 win team.


Didnt they win like 55 the year after he left?

And again, Im not even talking primarily about when a player leaves a team, because the era with him and the era without him are apples and oranges circumstances. Im talking about a period of time when he’s on the team but does or doesnt play. Most teams dont see nearly the drop off in wins when a star player sits with injury that most people would assume they do.

Chicago faced more injuries and lost Horace Grant in 1994-1995. When healthy, they played at 52-win pace.



In ’94, the Bulls played at a 55-win pace when healthy (4.7 SRS). There was undoubtably malaise during the 1993 season after deep postseason runs and the Barcelona Olympics, so a direct comparison between ’93 and ’94 is apples-to-oranges. Still, the ’94 Bulls added Toni Kukoc and Luc Longley, replaced Jordan with a defensive-centric Pete Myers, and posted close-to-contending results.

In 1995, with key cog Horace Grant lost to Orlando (and Ron Harper aboard), a healthy Bulls team still played at a 52-win pace (3.8 SRS) with an rORtg of +1.1 before Michael Jordan returned.