|
Post by blindlywewander on Feb 14, 2007 23:09:51 GMT -5
In the NBA, stars are defined by the number of points they score. Kobe Bryant, for example, shoots regardless of coverage or distance from the basket. Dirk is never hesitant to put up a jumper or a three whenever he wants. D. Wade can even fall in this category (especially in the 4th). These guys are superstars in the NBA. Then we have the bench warmers who come in for 10-15 minutes a game and actually share the rock. Normally, they're the guys who pass to Kobe and D. Wade (ie. Luke Walton, Gary Payton, etc.) So, while these guys have established themselves in the league (especially Gary, but that's not the point), they're not taking 15-20 shots a game like the captains are. So, what's better? (You can define better however you'd like). Would you rather have a ball hog or a consistent team player? When the injury bug bites, is it better to have a deep bench or just wait for your star to return?
(This may seem obvious, but think about it before you answer. This is easily a two-sided debate, so make the most of it...)
Discuss...
|
|
|
Post by ckwatt on Feb 15, 2007 13:43:06 GMT -5
It really doesn't seem an obvious answer for me, I could argue a great deal for both sides to be honest. I don't know how a great deal of basketball players play, so I'll probably make a few football (soccer references) in this.
Firstly, with every team sport it's first and foremost about the team. No player can ever be bigger than the team, because the team can work without the player but the player can't work without the team. In soccer terms, look at Pele and Maradona. Great players no doubt, but they would not have won the world cup without a great team structure supporting them. Many great players have not won major honors because their team simply has not been good enough. It doesn't matter how good you are - if you're in a bad team, you won't win anything.
At the same time, flair players can produce moments of magic when it really matters. They really have the ability to pull something out of the hat to give their team the edge. As such they are almost invariably the most liked players among fans because they have that little bit of extra class which their teammates may lack. Players like these can captivate the imagination of the fans with what they can do.
In all honesty I'd say that the top teams should have a good mixture of both - some players who can turn games with a touch of magic, along with some rocks who are always there doing a job for their side without getting the same attention as the more skillful players.
It's tough for me to take a side, but I'd probably rather have the consistent, reliable team players than the big guns with all the skills. To illustrate why I cite Real Madrid - for a while the big team in European soccer. They had some of the most skillful players in the world - Zidane, Figo, Raul, Ronaldo and Beckham. But their downfall came when Claude Makelele - a grinding central midfielder with nowhere near the same skills as those mentioned, was sold to Chelsea. He's been great since he came to Chelsea, and it's players like him who can make all the difference in big matches, despite going virtually unnoticed.
|
|
|
Post by GEO on Feb 15, 2007 16:14:53 GMT -5
Good debate. Interesting topic. Time to take ck down for once Give me the star player. I'm circular. Benches are rectangle. Basketball is a business. It can't be denied. If it weren't a business, we wouldn't have commissioners telling the players what they can wear, say, eat, and look at. We have a few owners who don't know the difference between a free throw line and foul line and the players are being paid to run up and down a court. It's not a game. It's a business. How does this tie in? A deep bench may get a team through a season. But a star player can get a team through in the front office. No one is paying to see guys like Toni Kukoc. We pay to see Dwayne Wade take it to the rack. We pay to see Kobe Bryant score 81. We pay to see Iverson put his hand to his ear and then curse us off in front of the media. The answer to this question depends on who you are. If I were the coach, I'd want a deep bench. Props to Phil Jackson, but not all of us have such great job security. If I'm the coach of a one star team, and that star goes down, odds are I'll lose my job if I can't get a weak bench to play like superstars. If, however, I have a balanced team (such as the Bulls) then I can coach my team the way I want, and if someone gets hurt, I have players that can jump right in. If I'm an owner, I want the star. While I care about winning, I didn't buy a team to stay even. I want to make money. The best way to do that is to get people to pay for tickets. If I want people to buy tickets, I need some star power. That's why Sidney Crosby is such a big deal to Pittsburgh. It's not because he gives them a chance to win. (Which he does) But he gets everyone in the team a pretty penny. And this is easily not one-sided.
|
|
|
Post by blindlywewander on Feb 15, 2007 21:09:16 GMT -5
Good job so far. One point of advice.. cite basketball examples. This debate can apply to any sport, but it doesn't. It's about basketball (preferably). ckwat- You make a good point about Pele, but even now when you mention both names (Pele and Maradona), Pele is definitely the most recognizeable. It's like GEO said, people come to see the stars. People pay to see Jordan, not Toni Kukoc. GEO- Pick a side. You made reasons for both sides. Which do you support? Are you an owner or a GM? Or are you just a fan? What/who takes precedent? Everyone else: Get involved!
|
|
|
Post by GEO on Feb 16, 2007 15:16:25 GMT -5
I am taking a side. But point of view does matter. Let me think this out:
-Fans matter the most most. -Fans want to see stars. -Fans are happy with winners. -Fans are happier when they are winners with stars.
I support the fans side. I'd rather my favorite team be balanced, then have just one star. At the same time, a lack of star power makes games boring.
So from both sides, I'll take the star player. It's better for the owner because fans will pay a pretty penny to see a star. And from a fan's prespective, sports is about entertainment, and that's what a star provides.
|
|
|
Post by ckwatt on Feb 16, 2007 17:13:09 GMT -5
To use the business example, yes, it's always good from a business point of view to have as many big stars as possible. It draws in the crowds, ups merchandise sales and in general it generates more income for the owners. But, still looking it from a business perspective, say you have one real star player and a bench without much quality. If that one star gets injured for any long period of time you're in trouble. The team could have an awful season due to not having enough strength in depth. Thus, the flow of money coming in can decrease significantly without a good squad to back up the stars.
The fans may be delighted to see Bryant scoring 81, but I doubt if he could do it if the rest of the team were having a shocker. The other players on the court may not get any of the limelight, but they're there, playing a solid game and backing up Kobe. Another point - not sure if this happens often in basketball, but in soccer and other sports - say a star player emerges in a useless team with no other reliable players. He can try all he likes but he can't win every game single handedly. In the end he'll get fed up and move to a better team. That's a big blow for both the owners and the fans.
From my point of view, it's always a bonus to be entertained by the star players and watching them strut their stuff. As I'm a fan as opposed to an owner, winning the game is the most important thing. Watching a Chelsea game, I'd much rather us win 1 - 0 in a scrappy game than lose 5 - 4 in a great free flowing game. While I do pay to see the team perform to the highest ability possible, ultimately I'm a fan, and a win is a win. I'd agree though, that too many scrappy games get boring.
I'm still firmly of the belief that you need both flair and gutsy spirit to succeed in any sport and therefore need a good mixture of stars and consistent performers. In measuring the two up though I'd rather have a team player who fills his role well week in week out than a huge superstar.
|
|
|
Post by GEO on Feb 16, 2007 18:32:23 GMT -5
As far as I know, in this debate, you can't have a star and a deep bench. It's one or the other.
A win may be a win, but it's nothing without a great performance. No one remembers the games where the one guys scores 25 and his team wins by 7. They remember the game where the star, the player who is supposed to be king, lives up to his reputation scores 40 and wins by 10.
Sports is about...magic. Yeah, magic. When you wish upon a star and all of that crap.
What gets a team press? A deep bench? Nope. Check out ESPN. They show the dunks, the three pointers, and the drug tests. That's it. They're not showing the team that's deep. They're showing the team with Dwayne Wade and Shaq. (Even though they have been mediocre all year)
If Chelsea's players went on strike and bunch of average guys started playing, (guys who were good, but not stars) ticket sales would drop and interest would go way down.
|
|
Oddjob
Rookie
[M:1000]
Posts: 25
|
Post by Oddjob on Feb 16, 2007 18:35:31 GMT -5
Personally I prefer a deep bench. I agree that a star player does draw more fans and is more exciting most of the time but a deep bench and a whole team of good players, not necessarily stars, would beat a star player any day. If i had the same quality players on the bench as i did starting the game and they're good then thats a winning team.
Overall I think I would rather have the long awaited parade down Broad Street than a star player such as AI or Forseberg.
(is Philly on the right track?)
|
|
|
Post by GEO on Feb 16, 2007 18:43:56 GMT -5
No, they're not. But that's besides the point.
My point is, it's not about the wins to owners. And to a lot of the fans, it's not either. How many people are crushed when a star player leaves. I've been crushed two or three times the past three seasons with the Avs. I still root for them, but there are a lot of people who stopped because they were Peter Forsberg or Alex Tanguay fans.
|
|
|
Post by phillyrules08 on Feb 16, 2007 18:53:28 GMT -5
I would also prefer a deep bench for mostly the same reasons as OJ. No pun intended. Because, with a deep bench you can sub guys in at will and not risk a lot of points being run up against you. With a star player if he gets tired you sub him out and send your mediocre players and you have.
|
|
|
Post by ckwatt on Feb 17, 2007 7:52:43 GMT -5
I agree that more memorable games take place when the big players live up to their reputation. But if your team won the NBA Championship by having a group of consistent players and no stars I'm not sure there'd be too many complaints. A lot of the time magic fails and it comes down to having a deep bench who can grind out games.
As for your Chelsea example, there have been periods this season when a lot of Chelsea's star players went down for a few weeks with injuries. The reason we got through those periods was because we threw in some of the guys with less quality than the big stars and they stuck in and performed. If we'd hadn't had that much depth in the bench we'd have been really struggling.
On quite a few occasions when star players have left I've been disappointed by it. But when a star leaves you just have to get on with it, because no player is bigger than the team. You may lose a few fans who were there for the big guns due to them leaving, but you'd probably lose them in the long term anyway when their heroes retire.
|
|
|
Post by GEO on Feb 17, 2007 13:17:50 GMT -5
Another point I wanted to make, and this one is especially true for basketball.
Before Ben Wallace, I don't think the Chicago Bulls had any "star" players. But they made the Playoffs because a star was born in Ben Gordon. Believe it or not, for a team to win, somebody emerges as a star.
This is true for every sport.
You think the 49ers would have done so well if Frank Gore hadn't emerged as a star? How about the Titans and Vince Young?
In Philadelphia, Jeff Garcia became a star. And on the 76ers, Iggy is quickly becoming the star.
|
|
|
Post by ckwatt on Feb 17, 2007 18:08:31 GMT -5
Stars can emerge to give a team that edge which can help win championships. But without the foundations there in the first place the star player is not able to show off his true talents. There have been many times when I've seen a top class player in a losing team because what he has around him simply isn't good enough.
For me it's of great importance to have the backbone in place before the stars. If a star does emerge among the deep squad then that's great, if not you've still got solid foundations in place and can compete under any circumstances, unlike the team with one big star and a mediocre bench who fall apart when the star gets injured.
|
|
|
Post by GEO on Feb 18, 2007 18:45:52 GMT -5
I disagree. I don't think it's of great importance to have the backbone in place before the stars. It can work either way.
In my opinion, it's better to build around a star.
Cleveland is trying to do that. They have Lebron James, and they need to build around him. They don't need a solid bench. They need a big man and a consistent secondary scorer.
A team with a star player is only one piece away from the big one. Look at the Miami Heat. All they needed was Shaq and suddenly, Dwayne Wade was empowered to help win a Championship.
You're arguement is all based on whether or not a star gets injured. But no matter what, if a team's main player goes down, there are going to be problems, deep bench or not.
Lets say the star player doesn't get injured. Then a deep bench isn't as valuable, but having the uninjured star is.
|
|
|
Post by blindlywewander on Feb 19, 2007 1:57:43 GMT -5
Don't stars emerge from deep benches? There are stars in this league who came out of nowhere. Everyone that's good isn't always a number one draft pick. Does having one proven star compensate for having a bench of potential stars?
|
|