people seem to be forgetting that the reason that there is only 1-3 stars per team is not because that's the optimal balance between stars (read: creators) and role-players, it's because there isn't enough of these stars to go around.

You do in order to be good at off the ball offense (unless ur bigmen can hit shots/3s and you can go inside and play the role of a bigman near the hoop), obviously if you are the one constantly creating ur own shot u dont need to shoot the 3 but when you don't have the ball, being able to hit the 3 (or even a midrange jump shot) is hugeeeeeeeeeeee.

Can't comment that much on Elgin Baylor, but if I'd have to guess he was a ton more effective with the ball in his hands than without it.

A team of 12 Carmelos would beat a team of 4 Carmelos and 8 Bowens, probably pretty handily.

He hasn't seen him play ldo (neither have I).

huh? There are def still more all-stars avaliable and it's round 6

I'm going to need a list of "stars" to fully understand this incredibly ******ed debate plz.

Yes. That's exactly the point I made earlier and I obv agree 100%. People are imitating what they see in the NBA, but its based not on some awesome ultimo strategy, its based on scarcity.

lol change Bowen to Battier and I wish there was a way to put money on this because I would be willing to wager a lot that it wouldn't.

Amen to this. Though current rules are extremely "superstar" friendly (I actually believe that the Stern and co did this intentionally to create more big names in the game, but that is a whole other topic). In the 80's you really needed 5 guys who could make a play on offense. The was more ball movement and the game was more fluid. Maybe players weren't as strong and fast back then, so defenses recovered slower, and therefor the ball movement led to a more balanced offense. In the 90's the game was a lot more about matchups. It was tougher to double team, and you couldn't play a zone where a weakside shotblocker could camp out and help. So if you played a 5'9" PG, the other team's 6'3" PG could post him up all day. Now post play from guards is basically irrelevant. Defensively, teams were as bad as their weakest link. Nowadays a good scheme or a dominant big man can make a team tough to beat.

1-3 stars per team in the current NBA.

Since it's obviously impossible to simulate, I would be interested in putting a large amount of money on this, outlining our arguments (maybe over a week-long debate), and then taking a vote to decide.

Battiers exist because there aren't enough Carmelos in the world, not because he's great.

I would never agree to a vote to decide this as I don't think popular opinion would be right.

Email the question to your favorite pundit(s) and see what they say?

Limit it to knowledgeable NBA posters, assuming that you're worried about the pro-star bias among casual NBA fans due to propaganda.

It's easy to make statements (and claim to be able to put money on it) when it's impossible to prove.

No I don't think the ones you'd consider knowledgeable NBA posters would be right on this topic.

+a million

Btw, something I left out of the initial writeup that I like about the flexibility Kersey gives me. If I'm facing a team that doesn't have a big offensive Center I can send out a lineup of Moore/Ray/Kiki/Kersey/Brand and run a very high paced offense that would be pretty sick imo.

So if the knowledgeable NBA posters wouldn't agree, and the casual NBA posters wouldn't agree, how can you think that you'd be right? You seem intelligent enough to realize that when there is an overwhelming majority (and not just amongst the uninformed masses), they're usually right.

But then again, as it seems a theme throughout this thread, everybody else other than you is pretty much always wrong.

How about the ability to not be just a role player?

Just like the majority of these knowledgeable posters thought the Lakers would easily beat the Celtics (I thought the Celtics had a slight edge), and the majority of these posters laughed at me when I claimed the Red Sox had a 5:1 shot of winning the World Series, a 3:1 shot of the Patriots winning the superbowl, and a 15:1 shot of the Celtics winning the NBA championship (all of this was right before the start of the NFL season) and all of these knowledgeable posters thought the odds were much worse than mine.

EDIT: I also agree with this forum on like 95-99 percent of the things, just not on a few things, it's not like it's common that I disagree with mostly everyone, it just looks that way since it usually goes into long drawn out arguments when I do.

And you don't get what we're saying: A team of stars is most ideal, provided they are well rounded. Yes obviously with 10 Carmelo Anthonys on your team, you'd want some role players who could play better D and shot the 3 ball better. However, with well rounded stars that can do that then you just want stars.

Epeen:

You are just condesending + rude. I'm just totally sick of everything that you say - its all toxic, self-serving crap. Really.

You are misunderstanding my point, obviously I want a team with well rounded stars who can all play defense/shoot over a team of stars/battiers.

It was the star on a team with a lot of stars (and said star wasn't a top 3-4 offensive player on the team), who couldn't shoot or play defense where I would rather have someone like Battier in their place.

I've been through this debate with EPip before. Basically he always thinks hes right and never changes his mind on anything ever.

perfect.

SE could use a survivor contest imo