Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Something I have been thinking about and noticing ever since Lebron went to Miami to supposedly form a triple-threat, superstar dynasty is that in most situations, a team is better off with only 1 or 2 superstars at a time. Not 3.
Sure. The Heat's run might seem to buck that idea. But not really. Lebron was the Xfactor there. As soon as he left, Cleveland became the team to beat. It was all about Lebron, and had very little to do with Wade and Bosh, good as they are.
Think this is coming to fruition again with the Thunder and the Warriors. I think the Thunder team is operating (offensively at least) a lot more efficiently with Kevin Durant no longer there. Westbrook has been able to fully take over the team, and put it on his back. And there combined talents don't cancel each other out, like they used to.
Now this theory gets challenged when you consider Durant in Golden State, and how they are now top of the division. But I would argue that they would likely be leading the West regardless, just like last year. And Durant, Curry and Thompson is a rare situation where they play unique enough roles that they can gel together. Though not shine. Curry and Durant on the court at the same time isn't optimal. One will be shadowed to an extent, almost always. Have all 3 at the same time, and you just aren't using your guys right.
I know there are exceptions to this theory. But I think it makes more sense to only have 1 or 2 superstars per team to build around, as opposed to smashing the league's best all on one team, and expecting that to be awesome. Thoughts?