Want to understand why the NBA has downsized its SUPERteams? Let me introduce you to the Law of Diminishing Returns.
Courtesy: 123RF.com
You need one hand to follow the logic presented in this article. First, hold up three fingers. That’s the before picture. Then, hold up two fingers. That’s today’s picture.
Now, let’s apply those digits to what’s happening in the NBA.
Courtesy: 123RF.com
With free agency and trading most likely culminated for the really big players, we now have a brand new look in the NBA. The past decade, with the shift to ‘Big 3’s,’ is giving way to a shift back to ‘Big 2’s.’
And that’s not how analysts thought things would turn out. They predicted the rise of the Big 3’s would lead to Big 4’s and, perhaps, even the Big 5’s. And why not?
We had superteams, like Bron, Bosh, and Wade in Miami in 2011. More recently, we had Curry, Klay, and Draymond in Golden State, which grew even bigger with KD’s addition in 2016. If that wasn’t enough for GS (and apparently it wasn’t), the team created a massive superteam by adding Boogie Cousins this past year. No wonder Green responded by saying: “Now, all hell is gonna break loose!”
Well, hell did break loose. With not one, two, three, or even four all-stars–but now with five all-stars on the team … well … things didn’t work out. The Warriors didn’t win the NBA championship.
Plenty of my friends lost money on a “sure bet” that turned out not to be. Who would have thought (they didn’t) that Kawhi teaming up with Drake would win a championship? But two major injuries proved to be the Achilles’ heel (no pun intended) for this West Coast Super-Superteam.
So now what? Was anyone expecting Golden State to add another free agent this offseason to bolster their risk tolerance? If anything, we expected to see KD in New York, which we’ll see (although not at MSG as many had thought, predicted, and hoped).
Au contraire to presumed super-superteam dominance, the NBA is downsizing to a two-star player model. For proof, see my graphic to the left. (You can add the Pistons to the list. Detroit is making a play for Westbrook so that he can team up with Blake Griffin).
Why the shift to the two-player model?
It’s probably a combo of money and ego. Reality comes into play, too. Supply is an issue. A limited number of top-caliber players are available.
But I really think there’s more to why teams are going to a 2-player model. The major factor, I think, is that team management is learning that the logic behind super-super-supersizing is flawed.
It’s based on the mistaken assumption is that having more all-stars on a team will increase a team’s chances of winning a championship. Yes, that thinking makes sense intuitively, but it doesn’t make sense in practice. Here’s why.
Consider the law of diminishing returns. Applied to the NBA, the law says that as you add more and more pieces of talent to a team, each additional new piece may not bring about as big an increase in new returns as the piece before it.
Consider a team with no superstars. Adding one makes gives it a chance of making the playoffs. Consider the Knicks when nobody else was left with Kristaps. Adding another player–say, Kanter–made the Knicks into a possible contender. But once you start adding a third or fourth piece, the quality of the addition(s) has less to do with individual talent than it has to do with teamwork and the cohesiveness of a unit.
The law applies elsewhere in life. For example, cluttering up an expensive Manhattan penthouse apartment with four masterpiece paintings can be problematic. That’s because each masterpiece needs its space–space to spread its unique aura.
The same logic applies to the NBA. Superstars need space to “spread out and shine.” Sure, if you can get three or four superstars to work in tandem on a team, you’ll get amazing results. Just don’t count on it happening. More often than not, egos will get in the way–unless….
Courtesy: pagesix.com
When LeBron joined Miami, he was the dominant figure to Wade and Bosh. But consider what had to happen to make the Heat ‘hot.’ Wade and Bosh acquiesced by taking submissive roles.
Why would they do that? We can speculate that Wade (having already won a championship in 2006) knew that Miami would always view him as “professor emeritus.” He stepped aside and let Bron be the big cheese. Bosh, who was big in Toronto, knew he had little chance of winning a championship there. Miami was his chance. So he followed Wade’s lead.
But even with Wade and Bosh doing what they did, the situation in Miami didn’t kick in immediately. It took time–two seasons–for that team to win a championship.
Steph Curry walked a similar path in Oakland. He willingly handed over the keys to KD in exchange for a backseat and sustained winning. Curry knew that GS fans would understand (they did), and he kept playing…and winning. If anything, fans love Curry more today than they did before.
But adding a third player doesn’t always help and–even when it does–other issues can get in the way. KD is an example. He got slack from the media for joining a championship team for the primary purpose of winning a championship. Later, Draymond accused KD of mentally “checking out” before the season was over. The pile got deeper when multiple injuries required shifting roles. All of that put even more pressure on Curry.
And while there isn’t scientific evidence (there should be) to support what I’m about to say, I hypothesize that having an super-superstar, like Curry, switch from a dominant role to a submissive role and, then, back to a dominant role is harder to make than for a lesser star to execute.
But lesser stars can do it, too, as Jeremy Lin did. New York had its moment of ‘Linsanity’ and, with it, Lin was a press and fan darling. But Lin was also able to transition to a dramatically different role–as a respectable, but mid-level player–in Houston. Lin did it without letting his ego get in the way.
Carmelo Anthony, on the other hand, could not. Carmelo expected to be “The Man” his entire career. It didn’t work out that way. The once-super-superstar was asked to come off the bench in Houston to assist his friends, James Harden and CP3, who were the team’s go-to guys. Carmelo couldn’t do what Wade, Curry, and Lin did.
That’s why I give a special shout out to Steph Curry. He gave up his dominant role for KD, switched back to be dominant again during the season, and then shifted once again when KD came back for the Finals. How hard is that!
Courtesy: Ibtimes.com
An all-star player–an MVP mind you, too–like Curry is in a special category. His perseverance and drive sustain him when he’s worn out mentally and physically. Something in the back of his brain takes over, especially during the final seconds of a game.
LeBron has the same attitude. Kyrie Irving does, too. Irving came to the Celtics thinking that Boston was HIS team. But his injury–and the rise of other talents, like Hayward and Tatum–prompted a need for more space “to do his thing.”
Its time to summarize.
It’s clear that leading NBA teams are now moving to a ‘Big2” model, that is, combining a dominant superstar with a submissive superstar. But (yes, there’s a but) the question is whether a player, like Kyrie, will be okay in the submissive role to KD.
It’s a complicated situation. For starters, Kyrie has a chance to have a breakout year on his own while KD is on the mend. But what happens when KD returns to action? The good thing for KD (and the Nets) is that he seems to have a smaller ego than LeBron. Another positive for Brooklyn is that both Kyrie and KD have seen what can happen when big egos get in the way. That should, might, or could (pick one) increase the odds that things will actually work out at Barclays Center.
So what do I think about the new-look NBA? I LIKE IT! This is the first season in a long time when I can’t predict who’s going to win the conferences or the Finals. Things were easier when we had super-superteams.
So, welcome fans to the ‘Big 2’s’ … unless, of course, the Lakers and Clippers decide to ‘superteam together’ and create the first ‘Big 4’ with Leonard, Bron, Davis, and PG13. If that happened, Draymond Green would certainly say, “All hell HAS broken loose!”
