I have honestly never been so dialed in on the Pacers in over a decade...

[msgkings322]

But isn't that the point of super team? Super teams are supposed to be teams of super stars brought together. And when they fail people can revel in the schadenfreude.

Sure but again, the schadenfreude is because they are NOT a superteam. Intentions have nothing to do with it.

 

[tlance]

But isn't that the point of super team? Super teams are supposed to be teams of super stars brought together. And when they fail people can revel in the schadenfreude.

People have different definitions of super teams, but mine requires multiple superstars on the same team. You don't need 3 all stars, but you need 2 superstars. Superstars are the super elite. I believe you can make a strong case for 7 or 8 players in the current NBA, but George and Melo definitely are not in that level. Chris Paul used to be, but he isn't anymore either.

The Rockets are close, the Cavs with Kyrie were close, but the only definite super teams of the last 10 years are the current Warriors and the LeBron Heat.

I do not think you need to be a superteam necessarily to beat a superteam, but you better have 1 legit superstar and some damn fine complimentary pieces, at least one of which being an all star level player.

 

[trojanfan12]

I could see the argument for Houston (even though I disagree), the fact that you think the current Celtics and Thunder are superteams shows your overall credibility as a mod.

The Celtics and Thunder qualify because of the names on the teams. Just because they are injured (Celtics) or just don't seem to fit well together (Thunder) doesn't mean they aren't superteams or perhaps more accurately, attempts at superteams.

So here you are, in your comfort zone...wrong again.

I'd say that the fact that it has to be explained to you hurts your credibility, but first you have to have credibility.

 

[trojanfan12]

Sure but again, the schadenfreude is because they are NOT a superteam. Intentions have nothing to do with it.

I disagree. Intentions have everything to do with it. It's the failed attempt at building the superteam that people revel in.

A team can be a superteam because of the names on the roster and still not perform like one on the court. I mean, look at the Thunder...they have 3 stars, 2 of whom are going to be first ballot and HoF'ers and the other likely to be an HoF'er. That's a superteam roster. The fact that they haven't performed like one doesn't change the fact that this was intended to be a superteam.

 

[msgkings322]

I disagree. Intentions have everything to do with it. It's the failed attempt at building the superteam that people revel in.

A team can be a superteam because of the names on the roster and still not perform like one on the court. I mean, look at the Thunder...they have 3 stars, 2 of whom are going to be first ballot and HoF'ers and the other likely to be an HoF'er. That's a superteam roster. The fact that they haven't performed like one doesn't change the fact that this was intended to be a superteam.

nd I am simply using words like 'is' and 'is not' properly. There are superteams. There are teams that wanted to be super but aren't. Those last ones, by definition, are NOT super teams. If they were, no one would be laughing. It's tautological.

 

[trojanfan12]

nd I am simply using words like 'is' and 'is not' properly. There are superteams. There are teams that wanted to be super but aren't. Those last ones, by definition, are NOT super teams. If they were, no one would be laughing. It's tautological.

I disagree. I think the names on the roster make a team a superteam whether they end up playing like one or not.

And just so you know...disagreeing with me on this means you agree with hurricane...you sure you want that evil on you?

 

[msgkings322]

I disagree. I think the names on the roster make a team a superteam whether they end up playing like one or not.

And just so you know...disagreeing with me on this means you agree with hurricane...you sure you want that evil on you?

Oh my. Well, um, sure LOTS of superteams out there!

 

[HurricaneDij39]

The Celtics and Thunder qualify because of the names on the teams. Just because they are injured (Celtics) or just don't seem to fit well together (Thunder) doesn't mean they aren't superteams or perhaps more accurately, attempts at superteams.

So here you are, in your comfort zone...wrong again.

I'd say that the fact that it has to be explained to you hurts your credibility, but first you have to have credibility.

Names do not equal superteams. Names are just what the eye test suggests they are - Names.

 

[trojanfan12]

Names do not equal superteams. Names are just what the eye test suggests they are - Names.

Actually, names are exactly what makes a super team or perhaps better stated...an attempted super team. You can't have have a super team without all star caliber players on it.

If the pieces don't fit and they don't perform like a super team...it doesn't change the fact of the players who are on the team.

OKC for example, has 2 future 1st ballot HoF'ers and an all star caliber player who may also be an HoF'er. That is a super team.

The fact that they haven't exactly performed like a super team is why we get to mock them and all claim that "we knew all along that it wouldn't work".

If those players manage to figure out a way to make it work and make a run to the finals or even win the title...everyone will be calling them a super team...

So why would we let them off the hook when they don't perform like one? Can't have it both ways.

 

[tlance]

Actually, names are exactly what makes a super team or perhaps better stated...an attempted super team. You can't have have a super team without all star caliber players on it.

If the pieces don't fit and they don't perform like a super team...it doesn't change the fact of the players who are on the team.

OKC for example, has 2 future 1st ballot HoF'ers and an all
star caliber player who may also be an HoF'er. That is a super team.

The fact that they haven't exactly performed like a super team is why we get to mock them and all claim that "we knew all along that it wouldn't work".

If those players manage to figure out a way to make it work and make a run to the finals or even win the title...everyone will be calling them a super team...

So why would we let them off the hook when they don't perform like one? Can't have it both ways.

I have to say, I couldn't disagree more.

Say the banana boat crew gets together somewhere next season. They are all future HOF players, but that ain't no super team. It does not matter what a player has accomplished in the past, it is all about what they can produce now.

There are and have been many teams with multiple all stars. Those aren't superteams either.

Superteam = multiple superstars + other quality parts

That means we are looking at the current Dubs, the LBJ Heat, the Shaq/Kobe Lakers, the Jordan/Pippen Bulls, the Showtime Lakers and the Erving/Moses Sixers.

You could make a case for a couple more, but that is about it from the last 40 years. Super teams are special collections of talent. Russ, PG13 and Melo have underachieved a bit, but they were never going to be a superteam.

 

[msgkings322]

Actually, names are exactly what makes a super team or perhaps better stated...an attempted super team. You can't have have a super team without all star caliber players on it.

If the pieces don't fit and they don't perform like a super team...it doesn't change the fact of the players who are on the team.

OKC for example, has 2 future 1st ballot HoF'ers and an all star caliber player who may also be an HoF'er. That is a super team.

The fact that they haven't exactly performed like a super team is why we get to mock them and all claim that "we knew all along that it wouldn't work".

If those players manage to figure out a way to make it work and make a run to the finals or even win the title...everyone will be calling them a super team...

So why would we let them off the hook when they don't perform like one? Can't have it both ways.

You can't count a guy who once was a great player as part of your super team if he's old and broken down and a shell of who he was. Were the 1986 Celtics a super team because they had Bird, McHale, and HOFer top 50 guy Bill Walton (off the bench with no knees)?

Obviously like most sports debates, there's no way to 'prove' anything and how you think about it is determined by your personal definition of certain words. To me, and many others, a super team = a team full of super studs playing like super studs at that time. Not guys who used to be super. Obviously YMMV. You're just wrong.

 

[tlance]

You can't count a guy who once was a great player as part of your super team if he's old and broken down and a shell of who he was. Were the 1986 Celtics a super team because they had Bird, McHale, and HOFer top 50 guy Bill Walton (off the bench with no knees)?

Obviously like most sports debates, there's no way to 'prove' anything and how you think about it is determined by your personal definition of certain words. To me, and many others, a super team = a team full of super studs playing like super studs at that time. Not guys who used to be super. Obviously YMMV. You're just wrong.

I clearly agree with you, but I do think you picked a pretty bad example. Bill Walton was healthy that one year and the '86 Celtics were definitely near the top of my list of teams you could make a strong case for being a superteam.

 

[msgkings322]

I clearly agree with you, but I do think you picked a pretty bad example. Bill Walton was healthy that one year and the '86 Celtics were definitely near the top of my list of teams you could make a strong case for being a superteam.

OK fair enough, forgot the specifics of Walton. How about the LeBron-Shaq Cavaliers? 2 1st ballot HOFers on one team!

 

[tlance]

OK fair enough, forgot the specifics of Walton. How about the LeBron-Shaq Cavaliers? 2 1st ballot HOFers on one team!

Great example!

Clearly not a superteam. Although, I am sure @DorianRo will say Shaq carried LeBron to 65 wins or whatever they had. Nevermind that Shaq missed like 30 games that year.

 

[trojanfan12]

I have to say, I couldn't disagree more.

Say the banana boat crew gets together somewhere next season. They are all future HOF players, but that ain't no super team. It does not matter what a player has accomplished in the past, it is all about what they can produce now.

There are and have been many teams with multiple all stars. Those aren't superteams either.

Superteam = multiple superstars + other quality parts

That means we are looking at the current Dubs, the LBJ Heat, the Shaq/Kobe Lakers, the Jordan/Pippen Bulls, the Showtime Lakers and the Erving/Moses Sixers.

You could make a case for a couple more, but that is about it from the last 40 years. Super teams are special collections of talent. Russ, PG13 and Melo have underachieved a bit, but they were never going to be a superteam.

And I'm not talking about teams with old broken down players. OKC has Westbrook and PG who are both in their primes. Melo is past his prime, but he's still capable of putting up big points. As for other quality parts...Adams is playing like at least the 2nd best center in the league. Just because they've underachieved, doesn't mean they aren't a super team.

 

[trojanfan12]

You can't count a guy who once was a great player as part of your super team if he's old and broken down and a shell of who he was. Were the 1986 Celtics a super team because they had Bird, McHale, and HOFer top 50 guy Bill Walton (off the bench with no knees)?

You mean prime Bird, prime McHale, healthy Walton and prime or close to it Parrish and Dennis Johnson?

No, that's not a super team at all.

 

[msgkings322]

You mean prime Bird, prime McHale, healthy Walton and prime or close to it Parrish and Dennis Johnson?

No, that's not a super team at all.

@tlance already corrected me

So tell me again how that's a superteam and also the current Thunder is one?

 

[trojanfan12]

@tlance already corrected me

So tell me again how that's a superteam and also the current Thunder is one?

How the '86 Celtics were a superteam? I'm pretty sure I just did.

The Thunder have 2 all star players (1 the reigning MVP) and another 1st ballot HoF'er who is pasty his prime but still a viable player, he's not exactly "broken down". The also have very solid pieces around them...that's a superteam, they just aren't playing like one.

 

[tlance]

And I'm not talking about teams with old broken down players. OKC has Westbrook and PG who are both in their primes. Melo is past his prime, but he's still capable of putting up big points. As for other quality parts...Adams is playing like at least the 2nd best center in the league. Just because they've underachieved, doesn't mean they aren't a super team.

IMO you need multiple superstars.

I think you are setting the bar way too low if current OKC is in that conversation.

 

[msgkings322]

How the '86 Celtics were a superteam? I'm pretty sure I just did.

The Thunder have 2 all star players (1 the reigning MVP) and another 1st ballot HoF'er who is pasty his prime but still a viable player, he's not exactly "broken down". The also have very solid pieces around them...that's a superteam, they just aren't playing like one.

Like I said upthread, we're arguing over very subjective definitions of 'superteam'. Also, mine is right and yours is wrong.