Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops

Go Back   Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops > InsideHoops Main Basketball Forums > NBA Forum

NBA Forum NBA Message Board - NBA Fan Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-16-2007, 11:23 PM   #16
InfiniteBaskets
Decent college freshman
 
InfiniteBaskets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,854
InfiniteBaskets has a terrific reputationInfiniteBaskets has a terrific reputationInfiniteBaskets has a terrific reputationInfiniteBaskets has a terrific reputationInfiniteBaskets has a terrific reputation
Default Re: What's better to have, 2 superstars or 4 good players?

Quote:
Originally Posted by geeWiz15
It's situational. I'd rather have Tmac and Yao because Miller, Butler, Wallace and West don't constitute a starting lineup. There are no players above 6'7-6'8, no Center, and no shooting guard. Oh yeah and nobody who can knock down any kind of long jumper.

However, if there's any real doubt about the fallacy of having 4 very good players as opposed to 2 superstars, let's compare this year's Bulls, or the Pistons since the year after they won the title, with Kobe/Shaq.

I'd rather have 1 superstar and 2 very good players, to be honest. I think that's best. That's the Spurs. That's the Suns. That's the Mavs. That's all the great teams in the NBA today.

Completely agree.

Just having two superstars isn't enough if the entire chemistry of the team sucks. A Kobe and T-Mac paired up with three bad players and then no team chemistry doesn't equal championship. Also, Tim hardaway and Alonzo Mourning used to be considered high caliber players backed with a decent supporting cast, but it wasn't enough to keep them from being upset by the 8th seeded Knicks.

Francis and Yao never really clicked and I don't think T-Mac and Yao are clicking to the full extent of their potential but they're def an improvement. Starbury and Garnett played alongside each when they were developing, they probably could've have built alongside each other.

So 2 superstars can work with each other or they also can't click with each other.

Final Answer: Team Chemistry
InfiniteBaskets is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2007, 11:23 PM   #17
saKf
Roy = my new fave.
 
saKf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Not offended by low scores.
Posts: 4,206
saKf is a pretty well-respected postersaKf is a pretty well-respected postersaKf is a pretty well-respected postersaKf is a pretty well-respected poster
Default Re: What's better to have, 2 superstars or 4 good players?

It doesn't matter how many "good players" you have if you don't have at least one that you KNOW can get you the bucket you need when you need it.
saKf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2007, 11:42 PM   #18
Los Angeles
A Diamond In the Rough
 
Los Angeles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,293
Los Angeles has an OK reputation so far
Default Re: What's better to have, 2 superstars or 4 good players?

Quote:
The Kings would've won that game if it wasn't for Horry getting that 3 pointer, Dick Bavetta, or choking.

Well yeah sure if that helps you sleep better.
My point was, LA beat a VERY good team 3 straight years with 4 very good players. Horry made that 3 pointer, but since when has Horry had to create his own 3? Against Portland, Kobe set him up...against Sacramento he was wide open, my point is it's easier for those role players to perform when they have 2 superstars on the team. They get a lot of open looks.

LA went to Arco and beat them in game 7, I will always take 2 superstars over 4 really good players...the reason they are called superstars is because they have the ability to carry a team. Of course GeeWiz said it well, it's situational.

And yes Brad Miller, defense is the key...LA in that 3 peat had good role players who knew their role on defense, with Shaquille holding it down in the paint and Kobe on the perimeter.
Los Angeles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2007, 11:54 PM   #19
TMac&Luther
Karl Malone's bastard
 
TMac&Luther's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,440
TMac&Luther is considered somewhat coolTMac&Luther is considered somewhat coolTMac&Luther is considered somewhat cool
Default Re: What's better to have, 2 superstars or 4 good players?

Quote:
Originally Posted by InfiniteBaskets
Completely agree.

Just having two superstars isn't enough if the entire chemistry of the team sucks. A Kobe and T-Mac paired up with three bad players and then no team chemistry doesn't equal championship. Also, Tim hardaway and Alonzo Mourning used to be considered high caliber players backed with a decent supporting cast, but it wasn't enough to keep them from being upset by the 8th seeded Knicks.

Francis and Yao never really clicked and I don't think T-Mac and Yao are clicking to the full extent of their potential but they're def an improvement. Starbury and Garnett played alongside each when they were developing, they probably could've have built alongside each other.

So 2 superstars can work with each other or they also can't click with each other.

Final Answer: Team Chemistry

Yeah its called injuries, when both guys are on the floor healthy they click.
TMac&Luther is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2007, 12:11 AM   #20
Ben Jordan
Good High School Starter
 
Ben Jordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 886
Ben Jordan has a near all-star reputation hereBen Jordan has a near all-star reputation hereBen Jordan has a near all-star reputation hereBen Jordan has a near all-star reputation hereBen Jordan has a near all-star reputation hereBen Jordan has a near all-star reputation here
Default Re: What's better to have, 2 superstars or 4 good players?

For a modern point of view - Spurs > Bulls.
Ben Jordan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2007, 12:26 AM   #21
BankShot
5-time NBA All-Star
 
BankShot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,349
BankShot is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableBankShot is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableBankShot is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableBankShot is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableBankShot is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableBankShot is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableBankShot is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableBankShot is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableBankShot is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableBankShot is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableBankShot is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginable
Default Re: What's better to have, 2 superstars or 4 good players?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Collie

The only teams I could think of to not win without a transcendent superstar are the Supersonics and Pistons.

Even then, they had Gary Payton, a first-ballot hall of famer, and Shawn Kemp, who if he didn't have drug and weight issues could have had a hall-of-fame career
BankShot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2007, 02:02 AM   #22
Crazy Style
Bulls official mod
 
Crazy Style's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Chicago's Nearwest Suburbs
Posts: 1,880
Crazy Style has an OK reputation so far
Default Re: What's better to have, 2 superstars or 4 good players?

I often prefer more balanced teams, but two superstars and a few decent role players can take you a long way.
Crazy Style is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2007, 03:14 AM   #23
Y2Gezee
Troll spotting pro
 
Y2Gezee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: In hell when Im on ISH
Posts: 4,613
Y2Gezee is a pretty well-respected posterY2Gezee is a pretty well-respected posterY2Gezee is a pretty well-respected poster
Default Re: What's better to have, 2 superstars or 4 good players?

2 superstars any day of the week. Well as long as they have the role players to fill their roles.

I mean you take Tmac and Kobe and put them with like Brevin Knight, Dalembert, and like Krstic or even Darko (maybe)And I think you have a team that will compete. Its a team with a bit of interior D and rebounding, a little scoring from their interior, pretty much its a team that has a little bit for every need, plus 2 guys that can win games themselves any given day.
Y2Gezee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2007, 03:18 AM   #24
Kiddlovesnets
NBA Superstar
 
Kiddlovesnets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Nets 2nd round, Knick 37-45
Posts: 14,050
Kiddlovesnets has an incredible reputation hereKiddlovesnets has an incredible reputation hereKiddlovesnets has an incredible reputation hereKiddlovesnets has an incredible reputation hereKiddlovesnets has an incredible reputation hereKiddlovesnets has an incredible reputation hereKiddlovesnets has an incredible reputation here
Default Re: What's better to have, 2 superstars or 4 good players?

Maybe 1 superstar and 2 good players is a better idea, according to the success of Spurs(Superstar Duncan with the help of 2 good players, Manu and Tony).
Kiddlovesnets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2007, 03:48 AM   #25
Sharas
Great college starter
 
Sharas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: B&H
Posts: 3,126
Sharas is considered somewhat coolSharas is considered somewhat coolSharas is considered somewhat cool
Default Re: What's better to have, 2 superstars or 4 good players?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Los Angeles
Well yeah sure if that helps you sleep better.
My point was, LA beat a VERY good team 3 straight years with 4 very good players. Horry made that 3 pointer, but since when has Horry had to create his own 3? Against Portland, Kobe set him up...against Sacramento he was wide open, my point is it's easier for those role players to perform when they have 2 superstars on the team. They get a lot of open looks.

LA went to Arco and beat them in game 7, I will always take 2 superstars over 4 really good players...the reason they are called superstars is because they have the ability to carry a team. Of course GeeWiz said it well, it's situational.

And yes Brad Miller, defense is the key...LA in that 3 peat had good role players who knew their role on defense, with Shaquille holding it down in the paint and Kobe on the perimeter.

it was so close series, that example doesn't really prove anything. plus it can be argued that three-peat shaq is hardest guy to guard ever. and that kings team is one of best ever not to win a title.

i guess it depends on your definition of superstar. both kobe and shaq are among the best ever at their respective positions. many guys nowadays are dubbed superstars and they aren't really close to shaq/kobe level.

both iverson/melo and t-mac/yao made first round exits. it was utah (no legit superstar) and san antonio (only one) that played WCF.
and i won't bet against san antonio, phoenix or dallas this season. they're all again stronger than houston or denver.

i also like the idea of having 1 superstar and 2 very good guys. it's easier to build a successful system and good chemistry that way...not to mention that superstars don't really grow on trees, and with salary cap rules it becomes very hard to pair two superstars if you want to hold onto any decent role players.

Last edited by Sharas : 07-17-2007 at 03:51 AM.
Sharas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2007, 07:09 AM   #26
EricForman
Good college starter
 
EricForman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,347
EricForman has decent reputationEricForman has decent reputation
Default Re: What's better to have, 2 superstars or 4 good players?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Targus™
lol u picked some crappy "good players", i mean they're good but you could have made it fair at least.


I feel the opposite. He picked two CRAPPY superstars.

Usually, two superstars would be a NO BRAINER what so ever over 4 good players. But when the two superstars are Tmac and Yao (both are really top tier superstar the likes of a Duncan or a Kobe) who has played THREE FULL SEASONS together with a solid/average cast and has missed the playoffs one year and lost in first round in the other two.......

I think I may choose the four good players. And the players he listed are not bad at all, Caron Butler alone almost makes up for Tmac's production. Now prime Tmac was ahead of Caron, but CURRENT Tmac??? Caron is not that far behind. Then you throw in Gerald Wallace with his monster athletism and upside, David West (a solid big)... Andre Miller is the only one here who shouldn't be considered a "good player".
EricForman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2007, 07:12 AM   #27
Mojo Picon
Can barely lace up my sneakers
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5
Mojo Picon has an OK reputation so far
Default Re: What's better to have, 2 superstars or 4 good players?

In New Jersey are Vince Carter, Jason Kidd and Jefferson and itīs obviously itīs not enough to win a championship... I always prefer a well balanced team with a superstar (center o scorer) and two - three good players around him
Mojo Picon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2007, 07:12 AM   #28
EricForman
Good college starter
 
EricForman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,347
EricForman has decent reputationEricForman has decent reputation
Default Re: What's better to have, 2 superstars or 4 good players?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Collie
Magic Johnson and Kareem Abdul Jabbar
Moses Malone and Dr. J
Bill Russell and Bob Cousy
MJ and Pippen
Shaq and Kobe
Dwyane Wade and Shaq
Larry Bird and Kevin McHale

More often than not, two superstars is what you need to win championships. Even then, most of the others had at least one superstar.

The only teams I could think of to not win without a transcendent superstar are the Supersonics and Pistons.


these three in bold had absolute STACKED teams. they werent two superstar+scrubs...more like two superstars+one star+one good player+4 solid role players

Quote:
Originally Posted by Los Angeles
I think the Los Angeles and Sacramento rivalry proved it's better to have two superstars then 4 very good players.

.

Don't you mean two supertars+three really shady officials?

J.A. Adande forever gained my respect when he wrote this in LOS ANGELES TIMES

"The Laker's starting five are pretty tough to beat-- Shaq, Kobe, and the three officials"

He said this the day after game 6. When ever media in LA tried to act blind/dumb/ignorant about that game, J.A Adande spoke up.



I am also surprised at the amount of people saying "give me Tmac and Yao anyday". It's almost like they forgot this little fact--

these two have played togethre for three full seasons. One season they were a lottery team, the other two season they blew 2-0 lead and lost in the first round.

Last edited by EricForman : 07-17-2007 at 07:22 AM.
EricForman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2007, 07:38 AM   #29
Silverbullit
Good college starter
 
Silverbullit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,240
Silverbullit is a pretty well-respected posterSilverbullit is a pretty well-respected posterSilverbullit is a pretty well-respected posterSilverbullit is a pretty well-respected poster
Default Re: What's better to have, 2 superstars or 4 good players?

You need 1 true superstar, 2 good players, 2 fitting role players, and a 6th man!

The problem is, there are not many true superstars in the league.

Kobe, TD, Dirk, LBJ, Nash, KG...perhaps Wade (if he is healthy).

Shaq is a former superstar.

All other teams need at least 2 superstars to do it all.
Silverbullit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2007, 12:55 PM   #30
picc84
3-time NBA All-Star
 
picc84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Wash. D.C.
Posts: 8,676
picc84 has an incredible reputation herepicc84 has an incredible reputation herepicc84 has an incredible reputation herepicc84 has an incredible reputation herepicc84 has an incredible reputation herepicc84 has an incredible reputation herepicc84 has an incredible reputation herepicc84 has an incredible reputation here
Default Re: What's better to have, 2 superstars or 4 good players?

Quote:
Originally Posted by EricForman
Don't you mean two supertars+three really shady officials?

J.A. Adande forever gained my respect when he wrote this in LOS ANGELES TIMES

"The Laker's starting five are pretty tough to beat-- Shaq, Kobe, and the three officials"

He said this the day after game 6. When ever media in LA tried to act blind/dumb/ignorant about that game, J.A Adande spoke up.

LA beat Sacramento every year. The refs were responisible for that *every* single time? His point stands, their 'rivalry' was a great example of 2 superstars over 4 good players, regardless of whether or not one of the times LA beat them there was shady officiating.

Which there was, btw, but don't take all the credit away from Sac for choking.
picc84 is offline   Reply With Quote
This NBA Basketball News Website Sponsored by:
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:19 PM.




NBA Basketball Forum Key Links:
InsideHoops Home
NBA Rumors
Basketball Blog
NBA Daily Recaps
NBA Videos
Fantasy Basketball
NBA Mock Draft
NBA Free Agents
All-Star Weekend
---
High School Basketball
Streetball
---
InsideHoops Twitter
Search Our Site













Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. Terms of Use/Service | Privacy Policy