That Superstar thing again...

by bullsfaninbigapple on Aug 6, 2007 12:20 PM CDT Comment 10 comments

This diary combines the 2 things Matt really hates: The Wages of Wins blog and superstar theories! However, the value of a community like this is in having diverse viewpoints. So here is a link to a very thought-provoking article from what I think is a brilliant (and over the top arrogant!) blog:

http://dberri.wordpress.com/

FanPosts are user-created posts from the BlogABull community, and are to be treated as the opinions and views of that particular user, not that of the blogger or blog community as a whole.

0 recs | Comment 10 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

skimmage

Still if the Super-Star theory is literally correct, only Boston, Chicago, Miami, New Jersey, Phoenix, and San Antonio can win a title in 2008. Of course, I would emphasize, although the Super-Star theory has held for 28 consecutive years, I can't believe this is an iron clad rule that will never be broken. So fans of the remaining 24 franchises - including the Mavericks -- shouldn't despair. Well, at least some of them shouldn't despair just yet.

You can't whine about 'superstars', whiners.

by hscs on Aug 6, 2007 12:25 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

On the bright side

Ben Wallace is labled a 'Superstar' so the Bulls are in the mix.

I don't hate the WoW blog, I just don't read it. I'm sure the metric has value but I haven't found the ambition to look past the overall rankings and discover how rebounders are determined so much more valuable than volume shooters. Plus I didn't like how Berri came off in his pissing match with Hollinger last year.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 6, 2007 12:26 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

also

this at least has more value than the IRON LAW. (I think it used to be called the 'gold medal superstar' law or some other bullcrap)

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 6, 2007 12:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I, too,

read the Iron Law article and thought it was an excuse to hype up this year's Celtics even more. The whole business has begun to make me nauseated whenever I come across it. I think a more valid point than few teams win championships without so-called "superstars" is that it is difficult, especially with the media scrutiny and pressure to get big name players, to build a team around players not at the highest levels of the game. Few teams, and general managers, are smart and patient enough to put all the pieces together without a superstar, leading to trades or free agent signings that gut your team, creating other gaping holes, or leave a team without any salary cap flexibility.

by stevekerrsfloppyhair on Aug 6, 2007 2:43 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

the iron law article

is entirely based off a study done for Nbadraft.net last year (if i was nbadraft.net i'd be pissed for the attention this crap article is getting, versus the scholarly researched article of nbadraft.net)

Both articles bring up interesting points, but fail to make one thing clear. Are players great because of their teams, or teams great because of their players. Before 91, was jordan the G.O.A.T. No; was he even top 75, doubtful. Were the c's great because of russell, or russell great because of the c's?

by milesgmsu on Aug 7, 2007 9:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think it's the same author

my biggest problem is that the rankings of 'superstars' or 'gold medal' whatever is based off of subjective rankings like MVP and all-NBA voting.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 7, 2007 10:12 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Miles

c'mon. Of course Jordan was top 75 in '90. Go back and look at his numbers from 87-90. They were some of the best years ever, and he took some pretty mediocre teams deep into the playoffs. Were you even alive back then? You need to stop talking out of your ass.

Need new sig

by bullshooter on Aug 7, 2007 10:24 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

that's the slogan for Miles' comments

a day late, and out of his ass :-D

f'real, the 'top-75' thing was pulled from somewhere smelly, Miles.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 7, 2007 10:26 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ahem... (Bump)

Miles, you owe Blogabull and every Bulls out there an apology still.

Need new sig

by bullshooter on Aug 8, 2007 1:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The contracts...

The funny thing is with the NBA's contracts have to match up in trades rule should've been superstars are traded for "was" superstars.

Players get paid huge salaries based 20% on performance, 80% on potential and then, when they don't pan out, they get traded as cap relief for a team with a superstar looking to rebuild. Think Ratliff for Garnett, PJ Brown for whatever he should've been (Gasol most likely).

That reason alone will keep the Bulls from making any realistic move for Kobe Bryant. The Lakers are in Hollywood and market themselves as just that, entertainment. Almost in arrogance, they don't rebuild. Cap relief in a trade for Kobe isn't even an option and the fabled equal value doesn't exist for top 5 players (or even top 20 usually). The Bulls have been smart about their drafts and their FA contracts that they don't have any albatrosses to throw away. The only upcoming option would be Ben Wallace in 2 years but that wouldn't come close to satisfying the Lakers need for a star to draw in the crowds.

by CubFan81 on Aug 6, 2007 10:38 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs