Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
With the Pacers and Spurs dominating these playoffs, and Dallas winning last year, is the league trending towards team dominated ball?
For those of us who root for perennial doormats (Brooklyn Nets), it's becoming evident that you can win in the league without needing to have two superstars.
The Detroit Pistons of a decade ago started this trend and I think it's carrying on.
The Mavericks had Dirk, the Lakers Kobe, Spurs Duncan. Celtics Pierce and Garnett. Almost all of the those teams besides the Pistons were star dominated. Heat had Wade and Shaq.
The 1970-71 Milwaukee Bucks come immediately to mind.
Shoot, let's take three of the top 25 players in NBA history on one team: Elgin Baylor, Wilt Chamberlain, and Jerry West....and they lost the 1969 NBA finals.
I don't get this thread. Are we saying that Duncan, Ginobili, and Parker aren't superstars? They're as good a trio as you can possibly get. I would put Parker, Duncan, and Ginobili against LeBron, Wade, and Bosh and be completely satisfied with their level of play. If they played in a bigger market, they'd get much more fame. I also think Durant and Westbrook are two superstars, or they would be if they played in Chicago instead of OKC. Just because ESPN doesn't fawn over them doesn't mean that they're not superstars.
I don't get this thread. Are we saying that Duncan, Ginobili, and Parker aren't superstars? They're as good a trio as you can possibly get. I would put Parker, Duncan, and Ginobili against LeBron, Wade, and Bosh and be completely satisfied with their level of play. If they played in a bigger market, they'd get much more fame. I also think Durant and Westbrook are two superstars, or they would be if they played in Chicago instead of OKC. Just because ESPN doesn't fawn over them doesn't mean that they're not superstars.
Duncan and Ginobolli are both in the twighlight of their career. They aren't what they once were. The rest of the team is picking up the slack. I get the OP's point.
I don't know that I consider Parker a superstar.
Not sure I would say the Pacers are dominating the playoffs. The Spurs obviously are, but IMO OKC has been just as dominant. The difference in competition between the teams the Spurs have faced thus far and OKC has faced thus far is night and day. I know record wise the Clips and Lakers are almost dead even but I think the Lakers and even the defending champion Mavericks are on another level higher than the rest of the lower seeded teams. I might just be a homer but something tells me the Lakers would be "rolling" if their first two match-ups were against the Jazz and Clippers. The Spurs are rolling indeed, but they are going to get tested big time in the WCF against the Thunder.
what is ur definition of a superstar? I mean what is the criteria...
Is it based on fame or credentials on the court?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
