Depth vs Top-Heavy

[RyNye]

If you look at the statistics, come playoff time, 95% of the production comes from a team's best 6 players. The rest of the roster has virtually no long-term impact over the course of a series or multiple series. In that sense, it might seem like being top-heavy is better. However, teams in the NBA, by and large, are very bad at figuring out who to give minutes to outside of superstars (look at the Denver Nuggets, who give minutes to a woeful Wilson Chandler and almost no minutes to their best player, Kenneth Faried).

So my answer is ... well, both. You need a core of great players, and a lesser core of decent players, to win a championship. Every single championship winner has fit this mold, actually if you take the time to actually look at the statistics; it is just that decent players that fill their role are not as memorable as superstars, so when we look back retroactively it is hard to remember the 4-5 best players on the team who were instrumental in the ring.

[CelticsFan9]

It's a tough decision.  On one hand, depth gives you the opportunity to rest you best players while still keeping talent on the floor.  On the other, being top-heavy gives you a superstar(s) that can take over the game at any given point.

Personally, I'd take depth.  Like many have said, if say, Rondo, KG, or Pierce, go down, our season is pretty much over.  We need support that can lessen our top players' minutes so they can still have gas for the playoffs.

[LooseCannon]

Personally, I'd take depth.  Like many have said, if say, Rondo, KG, or Pierce, go down, our season is pretty much over.  We need support that can lessen our top players' minutes so they can still have gas for the playoffs.

The question is, would you trade Rondo, Pierce, or KG for two Courtney Lee or even two Brandon Bass-level players at whatever position you want?

It's nice to have both multiple superstars and the depth to have starter-caliber players coming off the bench, but what if you can pick one of those options?

[Moranis]

Well this is complicated , all past champions were essentially deep teams.
The best thing to do in the nba is get your top players in place than have the proper depth behind them , think 2011 heat , the top was awesome but they didn't win a championship until role players started to contribute (battier , chalmers , haslem , miller) , also think 2011 mavs , the top was so thin (only nowitzki actually) and they had all kind of depth wich won them the title . Think every championship team and role players played a large part in their runs . The one pointing to 08 remember no championship without : rondo perkins(role players in 08) posey house brown ...
I think the best moves done this season are the ones made by the celtics and the heat . They added the best role players to compliment their systems .
When it comes to the celtics having 8 players who can score 15+ in any game with 5 of them capable of going 25+ on any given game , with the ball movement on this team , u can really burn your opponents defenses.
Imho the lakers lack of depth will show in the playoffs . Both ways can win you championships if they are done correctly.
Ps : sorry for the english and sorry if I draged ...

Of all of the champions since the Bulls first three peat, I'd say there are only about 4 teams I would call deep and 3 of those also had at least one all time great player. 

[Roy H.]

Both help, but it's stars that win.

[fitzhickey]

I'd like both, but if a player like Rondo or Kg went down, I'd like someone of decent ability to back him up, but Superstars win chips

[BASS_THUMPER]

need a solid bench
they are just as important as your starters
and many cases they are better

[billysan]

For me, you need both to a certain extent but the most important thing beyond that is you gotta have at least one go-to guy. There just arent too many around and not all are obvious.

An example is that a lot of people (non Celtics fans) wouldnt put Paul Pierce in the top 10 players of the last decade. That he is a superior crunch time player (the Truth) is the key though for me.

If you have 2-3 guys that can get that last second bucket on a high percentage basis then you have what you need to be a contender. You still need a couple of role players off the bench that can hit an open shot and do the dirty work if you want to be a champion. Posey, Brown, House were ours in 08.

[pearljammer10]

Depth. Basketball is still a team sport. Teams are more successful and the deeper your system the better off you are.

[Who]

Top heavy

[Moranis]

Depth. Basketball is still a team sport. Teams are more successful and the deeper your system the better off you are.

Except that doesn't win you championships, 2 or 3 stars at the top and a bunch of role players is a much more likely championship team than a team with a bunch of good players.

[flyofchange]

I like girls with big boobs so Ill go with top heavy 

[the_Bird]

I like girls with big boobs so Ill go with top heavy 

If you had a ten-inch ding-dong, you might have gone with "depth"!

(I'm guessing this response might get deleted!)

[flyofchange]

I like girls with big boobs so Ill go with top heavy 

If you had a ten-inch ding-dong, you might have gone with "depth"!

(I'm guessing this response might get deleted!)

Nicely put sir  TP for you

[LooseCannon]

Let's break out a hypothetical.  You can choose between Team A and Team B.

Team A has ten guys who would get $4-7m/year as free agents, but no one who is likely to become a superstar.

Team B has three superstars who deserve the max, or close to it.  You can fill out the roster with the MLE, rookies drafted no earlier than the late first round, D-Leaguers, and minimum salary guys (who deserve to be minimum salary guys).

Let's add Team C as an option, where you have two superstars and trade the third for two MLE-level guys, a guy worth more than the minimum but less than the MLE, and a mid-first round rookie.

A, B, or C?