Star player or Star Team?

[spacejammer]

Hi guys after reflecting on the season and some of the more recent seasons I began to think about how some teams can be stacked with unselfish or average team players whilst some teams prefer to play and run through one MVP calibre type player.

In basketball theirs always talk about Lebron, Kobe, Michael Jordan etc... in the G.O.A.T debate.
But at the same time theirs also a debate on having a good team dynamic and being able to rely on multiple guys.

Even in the BBL this past season you had strong teams like London and Cheshire where every guy could be dangerous.
Then you also had teams like Leicester and Caledonia who brought in one MVP hype player in Teddy Allen and Quaide Green that provided alot of hype and talk too.

Which is what lead me to ask this question on what people think is more important.
Is having that MVP/Star player really so important or is it better to have a full of stars where anyone can step up?

[reallyoldfeenixfan2]

Think Nix is the prime example of a team full of players playing for each other, TBH they were a team full of superstars, looking at all the awards they picked up end of season. Still can't work out how LaQuincy missed out on the MVP?

[SamH]

It's got to be a team of solid players. One guy, no matter how good, can't do it all. MJ didn't win for 7 years because he didn't have enough help. Wilt Chamberlain by himself could never beat the Celtics teams full of stars.

What you do is, you look at who the best 10 players are in a match and sometimes one team has the best 2 players, but the other has the next 8, or 7 of 8. That's the team that's usually better overall. That might be the case for this year's nba finals actually. Arguably Doncic and Kyrie are the best 2 players in it, maybe Tatum instead of Kyrie but it's arguable. But after that who do Dallas have? The Celtics starting 5 certainly take up spots 3-7. And they're the favourites to win.

[mac]

You can admire an individual's skills but I would rather watch a team playing for each other.

[massiveridersfan]

Putting all your eggs in one basket is dangerous - what if he gets an injury that prevents him playing for 5 or 6 games? Always prefer team basketball and that's been a hallmark of Riders teams for a long time, till this season.

[dexter]

Personally I like basketball when it's played as a team game. Having a star player can definitely be good for the club and for the league because it draws spectators and media attention but that doesn't mean the team's going to win. Case in point, Caitlin Clark at Indiana Fever. The biggest star in the WNBA, and Indiana are second to bottom.

[SamH]

I think you normally do still need a superstar player though, its having both that leads to success. A single star on a bad team will not do very well despite getting great individual stats, and a team of good all rounders with no truly elite player will probably be in the upper-mid area of the league but not threaten to win anything. Good example would be the Chicago Bulls when MJ went off to play baseball - they were still good without him but not championship contenders. Take a team like the Tim Duncan Spurs - they were loaded with talent from top to bottom and well coached, and Duncan (later, Tony Parker) was the superstar. Whenever Duncan was injured, they didn't do so well, but when he played with the other talent around him, they were always a contender and 50+ win team year after year. Whereas when Shaq left the Lakers and Kobe was the only good player left, the Lakers sucked for 3 years until they acquired Pau Gasol to pair with Kobe and upgraded the supporting cast. Then they won again.

[spacejammer]

Jun 3, 2024 11:34:38 GMT SamH said:

I think you normally do still need a superstar player though, its having both that leads to success. A single star on a bad team will not do very well despite getting great individual stats, and a team of good all rounders with no truly elite player will probably be in the upper-mid area of the league but not threaten to win anything. Good example would be the Chicago Bulls when MJ went off to play baseball - they were still good without him but not championship contenders. Take a team like the Tim Duncan Spurs - they were loaded with talent from top to bottom and well coached, and Duncan (later, Tony Parker) was the superstar. Whenever Duncan was injured, they didn't do so well, but when he played with the other talent around him, they were always a contender and 50+ win team year after year. Whereas when Shaq left the Lakers and Kobe was the only good player left, the Lakers sucked for 3 years until they acquired Pau Gasol to pair with Kobe and upgraded the supporting cast. Then they won again.

Interesting, I suppose when you look at lesser NBA teams some players may look at it ad an opportunity to become a face of the franchise type of player.
But if you don't believe in the players around you then you can see why players might then be attracted to go and join a group of talented players and work alongside them.

Although that makes sense it then also leads to crictism of players like LeBron, KD and Harden where they leave a team and get accused of selling out instead of making the guys around them better.
Which I suppose is what Jordan did during both his 3 peats with the Bulls in the 90's.

[SamH]

Yes and to some extent that strategy is rightfully criticised but in LeBron's case he did give the Cavs plenty of chances to bring in some help and they never did. KD was different - he was on a team that led the Warriors 3-1 before blowing it and losing, in the conference finals. To then go and join that same team (who won 73 games without him!) absolutely stunk. Another year with OKC and who knows, they could well have got over the hump and I think had he delivered a championship there, instead of piggy backing to 2 with the Warriors, then he'd be a lot more respected now for his success than he is (not that I'm bitter about it!) KD to the Warriors is a good example of where even though he was the finals MVP both years, he was surplus to requirement. They won before and after him being there as well as with him there.