I’ve always agreed with Enchilada’s Superstar theory.

That’s just how it is in the NBA.

If you don’t have a superstar you don’t win Championships.

I agree LB.

They lack a player who can raise the level of his play and take over games.

In the past they were able to adjust there defense to stop the star player from taking over, but they haven’t had that since Larry Brown left.

I agree that some truly passionless, objective PER type stat needs to be included, as politics plays too much in this analysis. For instance, numbers wise, Chris Paul and Lebron absolutely blew Kobe out of the water this year, but we all know how biased and agenda driven MVP voters are, and how ready to hop on a bandwagon they are.

Perfect example: I don’t care how important defense is, there is absolutely no way Ben Wallace should sniff this list. He did well in voting by filling a niche role surrounded by 4 starters better than he was. But without subjective, momentum driven voting, he would not be at all considered close to a superstar…and he shouldn’t be. Jamal Magloire made an all-star team…does that mean he’d rank higher in this type of ranking than Mike Bibby?

KG took a huge hit in MVP voting over the years due his poor teammates and press isolation in Minnesota. With stat recognition thrown in, he would jump up the list, as he should. After Shaq, he and Duncan are clearly the best players of the era until Lebron hits his prime, with Kobe being just slightly below the two.

First off, I’m not one to trash such hard work. I’m trying to bounce constructive ideas around, because obviously a lot of thought and care went into these pieces.

To expand, I know the author addresses this, but the rating criteria is still a bit circular, as it’s all based on voting, which is based on team success, which, according to these articles, is determined by containing MVP players.

So because this article points to players who rank highly in voting competitions as ones to build around, it seems very hard to acquire one of these players, because the very criteria that rates them as desirable also by definition means that they are a known commodity, thus making it hard to “steal” one. It’s easier to steal the deceptively productive young bench player than the player who just finished second in the MVP voting, for example. In other words, this list of necessary pieces is determined by those in the know already knowing that they are valuable. So I’m trying to think of ways to acquire a future “gold medal superstar” without just tanking.

1. The draft. Even if everyone knows the player is a stud, if you own the pick, he’s yours. To do this without tanking, you just have to pull a blazers/seattle, and trade as much as you can for future first rounders and hope the teams you trade with end up being terrible.

2. Free agency. This only works in extenuating circumstances: like if you are running the Knicks or Lakers, or possibly Chicago or Miami. Boston’s probably 5th.

3. Trades for an aged star. This is where it’s more possible and strategy, like getting KG. Find a team in a desperate situation with terrible supporting players and a star nearing the edge of his prime. Everyone knows to hold on to a superstar, so the trick here (as what happened with KG) is to find a true superstar who has been in a bad enough situation beyond his control that has tainted his perception, as perception is what this superstar list is based on anyway. Being able to passionlessly separate the cause and effect of MVP perception is the key to this method. Basically, figure out when the bandwagon has moved on earlier than it should have compared to the player’s real skills due to team circumstances, etc. and jump on him.

4. Figure out hidden indicators based on performance that precede voting stardom. This is the goal of someone like Hollinger, trying to rank players based on objective performance regardless of team situation and voting success. For example, if you’re on a middling team with no one close to the above lists, and you are truly trying to win a title and not just build a competitive playoff team, try to find a player you think will eventually garner MVP/first-team votes, and overtrade for him (make an offer the team can’t refuse), lock him up, and build around him 2-4 seasons down the road when the player is entering his prime and you’ve accumulated the assets you presumably lost to gain said player. This is truly a longshot method, but possibilities based off the top of my head: Al Jefferson, Andrew Bynum, Monta Ellis.

Just some ideas to bounce around.

Hey, in another vein, do these articles change your perception of the draft? Chicago has a bunch of intriguing pieces, but no one you’d consider “gold medal superstar” material. I don’t think Rose has that chance, and listening closely to Chicago management, I don’t think they think so either. They were more looking for high character, little chance of bust. By the superstar rationale, wouldn’t they have been better off rolling the dice for the one guy in the draft with gold medal potential?

No-Kidding, thanks, true. Add that to the list. I’m having trouble writing coherently today, but I wanted to say proud of how Danny was able to turn the public sentiment that KG was declining and not a true Superstar simply because he hadn’t won anything…he took that perception, that media momentum towards a completely unquantifiable label of “not a winner,” used it, and landed a true superstar and won the title. I love to try to target guys who have great skills but are labeled “not a winner,” because earning that label is really arbitrary and beyond most players’ control. in a good situation, a “not a winner” can quickly become a “winner.” same reason i try to avoid “he’s just a winner” players, if you’re mostly paying for the “winner” accolade rather than the production (posey now. posey last offseason was great value).

The above articles really demonstrate the importance in the NBA of swinging for the fences if you want to win it all. More often than not you miss, but you really rarely build a team with “solid” pieces and win it all. Think of the 50 win memphis teams, chicago last year, etc. I applaud gms who make mistakes while clearly trying to go for a title. it doesn’t always work out, but as a fan I like watching team I really feel have a chance to win it all. After that, I like teams that aren’t that good but have some players who have the chance to develop into gold medal superstars, then i like teams that have a 1st or 2nd round exit ceiling, and lastly just plain terrible celtics teams.

Personally, that’s why I enjoyed 2 seasons ago better than the first year D.A. took over…that team had clearly reached its peak, had no chance at a title and no room for improvement. Yeah, the record 2 seasons ago was terrible, but Jefferson still had a chance to be special. I’d rather root for that team than a maxed out team with no upside whose peak is only okay.

Those good memphis teams really missed out on their chance by not figuring a way to upgrade gasol into a true superstar, or trade a bunch of its hyped depth into a superstar, similar to chicago’s refusal to swap Deng for Kobe. I love Deng, but he’s not going to be a gold medal superstar. I know it’s scary for fans and a gm trying to keep his job, but Chicago really needs to parlay that young talent into one superstar. Portland should took at doing something similar soon, with all its above average players and extra draft picks.

Now that I’m on that tangent, one possible target I think Portland and Chicago could look into is Carmelo Anthony. Still potential to be an elite offensive player, and his defensive shortcomings could be hidden with oden or chicago’s good team D.

On another tangent, i could really see ‘melo being lost in the hype of Amare, lebron, bosh, wade all hitting free agency in ’10. Anthony’s contract is 1 year longer than all their’s, so they’ll get all the hype, but I could see denver in a similar situation to Minny, with terrible contracts looking to rebuild and ‘melo getting the label of “great talent but not a winner.” I’d love to trade for him then when all attention is on the big name free agents and groom him to replace pierce. maybe with ray’s expiring deal next year. having ‘melo, rondo, perk, an aging nearing end of contract pierce and possibly Kg is a great lineup; rondo/melo is a very nice combo going post pierce/kg’s prime.

For instance, if Denver is having a bad year and wants to rebuild, at the deadline why wouldn’t portland offer Pryzbilla, bayless, lafrentz, outlaw and two first rounders (they have a ton of players and second round picks) for ‘melo and kenyon. Denver lets Iverson go, finally has cap room, makes a splash and gets to rebuild after this current mess. Portland looks forward to entering ’09-’10 with this lineup:

Blake
Roy
Carmelo
Aldridge
Oden

bench: fernandez, kenyon, rodriguez, webster, diogu, frye

that looks scary.

Sorry i’m posting so much, but i’ve got basketball on my mind.

If i were portland, i’d also seriously have to consider trading Roy without actually appearing like I’m shopping him. I think he’s a very good player, i’d love him on my team, but i’d think about trading him because I don’t think he’s ever going to be much better than a joe johnson type: good all around but decidedly not a superstar. However, in terms of trade return, I bet you could get more than he’s worth right now because his value is inflated and his reputation is high. he could possibly be part of a package for a much better singular talent, and in the NBA concentrating your talent from several good players to one great one is usually best.