View Single Post
02-27-2013, 01:40 PM
Registered User
SJeasy's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,538
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Dicdonya View Post
I disagree slightly with the idea that having an outright best player is always a problem, especially if you bring other sports into it. Hockey is special in the sense that even though one player may the best he really can only elevate the play of others to a certain point.

In other sports like basketball and football for example though, one player really can literally make your team a powerhouse regardless of most circumstances. Players like Jordan, lebron, Brady, manning, Peterson, Barry sanders etc could/can literally win a game almost by themselves.

I think you can't allow yourself as a coach/GM to not try to put good pieces around your unquestioned superstar, however I don't think it's really a fault either to recognize how good they really are and act as such. It's only really a problem if you don't recognize that even superstars can be better if they are surrounded by other talented players, and simply rely on one guy to do it all.
Not quite. My argument is that when you attribute infallibility to a superstar, you have failed. The temptation is always to go with infallibility as one of the superstar's characteristics. And it becomes much more difficult to motivate the superstar to improve.

I came from an era long ago when I saw two players in basketball, Chamberlain and Russell. Both excellent. Russell was definitely the lesser of the two, yet won ALL of the championships. In fact individually, none of the Celtics of that era would be considered top at their position. At one point, their best player, Havlicek, was the sixth man. The team was so integrated that he unbalanced the lineup when he was inserted. All of the pieces fit and they played the system to a tee. I wasn't even a fan of the Celtics.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote