|
Post by GEO on Feb 19, 2007 9:28:08 GMT -5
Sometimes.
I didn't say everyone that's good isn't a number one draft pick. But not everyone who develops is on a deep bench. In fact, playing on a deep bench would actually hinder that player's playing time and not give that player as much oppurtunity to develop.
And having a bunch of potential stars means nothing. It just means you have potential. For the coach, the GM, and everyone who isn't the owner, YOU MUST WIN NOW. And that's why potential is nice, but it doesn't keep coaches around.
|
|
|
Post by blindlywewander on Feb 20, 2007 1:04:26 GMT -5
So the game is played to keep coaches around? Kobe had potential and reached it. D. Wade had potential and reached it. Potential means something.
I'm not trying to debate 'cause I'm judging but no one else is doing anything. *cough ckwatt cough*
|
|
|
Post by ckwatt on Feb 20, 2007 7:19:43 GMT -5
Sorry blindlywewander, haven't checked this thread in a while.
With regards to the debate that stars emerge from deep benches: a lot of players on a team with a deep bench really rise to the big occasion when called upon. In that way you can have a player who fills two roles - a consistent player who is committed to the team and someone who can really perform when he's needed. I think it's better for potential stars to be surrounded by a squad of good players, rather than a squad of mediocre players with one star. The guy with potential learns from all of his team mates. Not only that, someone with potential in a poor squad with a big star may develop sooner because of more playing time, but he might also find that there is too much pressure on him to carry the side if the big gun is off form.
I think it's always risky to build a team around one big player - of that player gets injured, moves to another team or is off form, the team collapses. No team plays as well without their best player as they do with him, but a team with a deep bench can still play well together and get results. A team with one star is very well when that star is fit, well and performing, but when he goes off form or gets injured the team cannot function properly. And as every sports fan knows, it's easy to go off the boil for a while no matter how big a star you are.
|
|
|
Post by GEO on Feb 20, 2007 18:06:14 GMT -5
Neither of those players benefited from a deep bench. And yeah, the game is partially played to keep coaches around. If it weren't, then coaches wouldn't be fired.
I'm still not buying that building around a star isn't what you want to do. Teams very rarely trade for bench players. They trade for guys who can complement their star. (Shaq and Wade) The Sixers tried building around AI by getting Chris Webber.
Notice that every time a player goes to Cleveland, the question is whether or not he'll fit in with Lebron. Star players are what makes sports so much fun.
|
|
|
Post by GEO on Feb 21, 2007 18:18:59 GMT -5
I'm going to ask you to judge this by Friday. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by blindlywewander on Feb 22, 2007 1:21:19 GMT -5
Yes master... I'm going to wait for ckwatt to get some final thoughts in. GEO get some in too. I'll judge when you've both put closing comments.
|
|
|
Post by GEO on Feb 22, 2007 11:03:09 GMT -5
We have to dig deep and find why sports are played.
Money. It's apart of our business. Fans will pay more to see Kobe Bryant then they will a sold bench.
Highlights. Especially in basketball, this is the era of the slam dunk and three pointer. The stars sell the games and are the ones that make the highlights. Not a perfectly executed pick-and-roll.
Winning. This is the toughest place to argue my point, but I can still do it. What's the first thing a franchise does when they're an expansion team? They get a star to build around. In fact, every team does this. Cleveland is building around Lebron James. Miami is building around Dwayne Wade. the Lakers are building around Kobe. Philadelphia tried to build around AI.
You need a star before you can even think about a consistent bench. Because when you look at bench players, you want guys who will complement your money player.
Ck will still argue the injury side of it and I'll continue to argue back. You can't assume injuries like that. And when they do happen, teams do rebound. But the impact the star has when in the lineup is indeniable and can't be replaced by the bench. No matter who is on it.
|
|
|
Post by ckwatt on Feb 22, 2007 15:54:43 GMT -5
Basketball is a team game, therefore, and this may sound clichéd: the team is always more important than the individual. A solid, well built team will always be able to go on without a star player, but a star player won't be able to win anything on his own without good, if not so illustrious teammates behind him.
Secondly, I always feel it is better to build on a solid base, then build up with stars. As GEO has said, there are indeed many teams who try to build around a star. I know I've said it a lot already, but if per chance that star is injured for any period of time, is off form and not scoring as highly as he should be, or moves to another team, your whole structure collapses, and you have to start over again. With a solid bench you have the full structure already in place and it's easy to cope in the transitional periods when your stars aren't performing.
Yes, sports are about money to the owners. But there are a lot more fans in the world than owners. While there are some fans who follow players, the vast majority support the team. I'd still support Chelsea if the top players left. I'm sure most other sports fans would feel the same about their team. While fans enjoy seeing the big game players perform, they also enjoy watching a team who are functioning well together and winning. That's the big word: winning. Fans don't care how it's done. If someone wins the NBA Championship with no big name player in the team it won't go down as 'NBA Championship winners without as many slam dunks and 3 pointers as they could have had if they'd had Kobe Bryant'. All that is recorded in history is that they won, and it's that which fans remember.
GEO argued that bench players should be bought to complement your star. I disagree. Bench players should be able to come in and perform when called upon, they should be selected by the ability they'd be able to show when they come into the team, not how well they can play around the star. If you build like that you're always going to end up with a one man team, and that may work for a couple of years but it doesn't hold up in the long run.
I would argue that in most sports a team of good players will, more often than not, beat a team of mediocre players with one star. If the star fails to live up to his name the team of otherwise mediocre players are in trouble, while the team of good players always has consistency. Maybe not magic, but consistency, and that is what can win matches.
|
|
|
Post by GEO on Feb 22, 2007 16:08:05 GMT -5
A team of Kobe Bryant's beats the Detroit Pistons. 'nuff said.
Alright, I'm done. Judge away. I think I've lost this one though.
|
|
|
Post by blindlywewander on Feb 23, 2007 23:35:29 GMT -5
This debate is the exact reason why I hate judgin these things. I've read and re-read (3 times) each and every argument presented. This is definitely the most difficult one I've had to judge. I think both participants (main participants) did a very good job. I've concluded that however I judge this one, subjectively or objectively, the winner won't change. I've decided that the winner is:
Ckwatt. While several arguments included soccer (which is not exactly relevant to this debate), each argument presented by GEO was taken and turned into a point for his case. His arguments represented that of the majority of people which, in this case, is more important. Not to say that GEO didn't do great. This was definitely a very difficult decision but one had to be made. This debate was full of logical arguments but, to put it simply, ckwatts applied to more people. The only reasoning I had behind my judgement (it certainly wasn't the soundness/validity of the arguments because both did superbly) was that ckwatt's argument was applicable to the fans. GEO's argument applied many to owners and coaches (as well as fans who only follow players, who're the minority). Most fans care more about a championship than players making big plays (ie Kobe last year).
Great job to both guys. I hate to deny GEO 'cause had it been anyone else debating, he probably would've taken this one. ckwatt you're welcome to make a new thread..
|
|
|
Post by GEO on Feb 24, 2007 8:33:31 GMT -5
Perfectly fine Good debate, good judging. I would have been surprised if I had won. ckwatt wins in his return debate. Terrific job! New debate should be posted within the next two days
|
|