Forum Thread

NBA teams are better with only 1-2 superstars, not 3

Reply to Thread Displaying 4 Posts
  • 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?

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I totally agree with you. I can't recall who it was, but I remember seeing some headlines similar to this not too long ago. It was about two head guys (L. James, K. Bryant, etc) not able to agree on who "runs the team". I want to say it had to do who those two players, but can't say for sure. And that was with just two players.

    If you ask me, I think it shouldn't be split up like this at all. NBA has become so stage performance like, it's sickening. And guys like this are the stars of the show. It's like the ballet. You go to see the entire performance, but are mainly focusing on the featuring star.

    Not to mention, it has gotten so repetitive that I can't even enjoy it anymore. Ever read the definition of insanity? It's always the same thing. Player grabs the ball, runs it down for a dunk. Other team gets it, runs it down for a dunk. Over and over.... Of course there are layups and others shots taken, but that's not my point. My point is, is that the ONLY surprise in NBA these days is the who wins. That should be the only thing to look forward to in a sport. It's the GAME that matters to me.

    Kind of hard to explain where I'm coming from. Another example is to look at older ball games. No way they would hit as many points as they do these days. That would be insane to even think of, let alone be the norm.

    Here's some stats on that. These are just from the past 13 years.

    Here's 2003 - 04: teamrankings.com/nba/stat/points-per-ga...

    And here's 2016 - 17: teamrankings.com/nba/stat/points-per-ga...

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    PowerPlay Wrote:

    Here's 2003 - 04: teamrankings.com/nba/stat/points-per-ga...

    And here's 2016 - 17: teamrankings.com/nba/stat/points-per-ga...

    Crazy to see the Mavs go from best to worst in a little over a decade. :/
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dallasite Wrote:
    PowerPlay Wrote:

    Here's 2003 - 04: teamrankings.com/nba/stat/points-per-ga...

    And here's 2016 - 17: teamrankings.com/nba/stat/points-per-ga...

    Crazy to see the Mavs go from best to worst in a little over a decade. :/
    I didn't even notice that. Kinda makes me a little sad, being a TX native. Funny how that goes.