Depth vs Top-Heavy

[Vermont Green]

It never works if you try to trade a star to get back depth (think of the KG trade).  Teams always want to get the best player in the trade unless they are rebuilding and planning on taking a step back in the short term to be better in the long term.

The only team that I can think of that won a championship with depth over stars was the Pistons team that had Billups, Hamilton, etc.

I will happily trade you my depth for your star anytime.

[More Banners]

Only the top 7-8 matter, and 3-8 depend on who you have for 1-2, so it's really all about the top 2.

Teams that are anchored by a top player aren't necessarly champions if that player is replaced, even by another all star...so it's about the top 2 stars, IMO.

But anyone after 7 or 8 doesn't even matter since they won't play.

But no team has won without a major contribution from 6-7, maybe 8th man.  Antoine and Payton were those guys for the Heat, and could play next to or behind Shaq and Wade.  But they won them games that mattered.

So do the best you can to get #1 and 2, and go from there.  There are quite a few potentially solid-to-great #3's out there (in the mold of Deng and G.Wallace, and hopefully JGreen), so it's about landing the #1 and 2 guy.

Chicago blew it by signing a #3 guy (Boozer) to be the #2, BTW.  Their depth hasn't been bad.

[GuyMontag]

In the NBA it seems to me that winning meaningful games most often comes down to who has the best 2-3 players on the court.  If two teams have reasonably equivalent high-end talent, then the difference in supporting cast matters.

So I'd go with Top-Heavy, though obviously you'd prefer to have a team with a number of contributors.

[billysan]

I would like to point out that without James Posey, we dont win number 18 in 2008. The same can be said for Shane Battier on the Heat last season. There are many more examples, but the point is that many of these 'role' players play for small money when they could earn more elsewhere just to get a chance at a title.

I think a team needs both talented depth and superstars to win championships. Money alone doesnt always buy that talent. The organization has to 'sell' itself to attract complimentary players to their cause.

[pearljammer10]

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.

But wouldn't having a bunch of role players to add to your 2 or 3 stars means you have depth?




 That's my understanding anyway. The spurs would be my example at success. Parker and Duncan superstars, Manu is conversation, an a bunch of role players that add the depth. Together they carry the team. I wouldn't call them top heavy I'd call them deep. Theyve won championships. Then take the Knicks... Amare and Carmelo are superstars. Their role players don't give them team added depth. They are top heavy and unsuccessful as of late.

[CelticG1]

It never works if you try to trade a star to get back depth (think of the KG trade).  Teams always want to get the best player in the trade unless they are rebuilding and planning on taking a step back in the short term to be better in the long term.

The only team that I can think of that won a championship with depth over stars was the Pistons team that had Billups, Hamilton, etc.

I will happily trade you my depth for your star anytime.

No one said that was an even swap on the KG trade. You think Orlando thinks they got great depth by trading Howard?

You have to think of equal value.

I don't know something like would you rather have Carmelo anthony, baron davis, steve novak, and kurt  thomas or KG, Bradley, Terry and Green?

[GuyMontag]

I would like to point out that without James Posey, we dont win number 18 in 2008. The same can be said for Shane Battier on the Heat last season. There are many more examples, but the point is that many of these 'role' players play for small money when they could earn more elsewhere just to get a chance at a title.

I think a team needs both talented depth and superstars to win championships. Money alone doesnt always buy that talent. The organization has to 'sell' itself to attract complimentary players to their cause.

You raise a good point -- even top heavy teams need contributions from role players to go far.

Still, I'd also argue that it's much easier for limited role players (like Battier and Posey) to make a big impact when they are playing next to a handful of superstars.

[arambone]

There's no simple answer to this question. If LeBron or Wade get hurt this year, everybody will be talking about the riskiness of gambling on 2-3 stars. Just like would have happened in '08 if Pierce, KG, or Allen had gotten hurt.

I think the current Celtics roster is a great mix of stars and depth. The season looked like a lost cause until Bradley entered the starting lineup and Rondo, Pierce, and KG upped their games big time.

They say half of life is just showing up. Depth allows a team to show up even if they suffer a big injury or two.

The Celtics are primed to make deep runs in the playoffs in each of the next 3 seasons, because of their depth. That is very satisfying as a fan.

If I recall correctly, Lebron had a bit of a subdued season after the '08 Olympics. Those Heat guys played crazy minutes all playoffs, and then went right into the Olympics. I expect a degree of burnout for the Heat this season.

The playoffs are all about clutch play, whether that's superstars or regular guys that step up and play like superstars. The Celtics are deep with clutch guys with a record of playing like superstars in the playoffs.

[saltlover]

I think it depends on the type of depth you have, and the type of stars you have.  If your depth involves a lot of complimentary players who excel at different things, that may enable you to better exploit the weaknesses of other teams from game-to-game.  This may be less useful in a long playoff series (hence why stars win championships, and depth wins regular seasons), but even then it can still help your team be more adaptable within a longer series.  On the other hand, if your depth is really just backups at your positions, and the offer more of a "not-as-good-as-the-starter-but-similar" quality, then I think you're in trouble, because your depth just limits the dropoff from your starters, and your starters aren't as good as the other guys.

On the other hand, those type of backups may be good on a top-heavy team, because if one star goes down, or has to play limited minutes, the backup can come in without forcing a change of scheme, and that continuity will allow the remaining stars to operate at near their maximum level, instead of trying to alter their game to compensate for the missing player.

Of course, the other point is how good are your stars.  If we're talking about mid-career perennial mvp candidates and hall of fame locks, like LBJ now, Kobe a few years ago, or 90's MJ, then yes please, star players always.  If we're talking about the next tier or so of players, such as Josh Smith or Deron Williams, then making them the centerpiece of a deep, versatile team might make more sense than merely getting backups for them, or trying to pair them with other stars of that level.  (Of course, there are some on this board who think that Deron and/or JSmoove are the cats meow.  I think they're both good players whom I'd be happy to have on the Celtics, but find neither transcendent players.)

[Fan from VT]

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.

But wouldn't having a bunch of role players to add to your 2 or 3 stars means you have depth?




 That's my understanding anyway. The spurs would be my example at success. Parker and Duncan superstars, Manu is conversation, an a bunch of role players that add the depth. Together they carry the team. I wouldn't call them top heavy I'd call them deep. Theyve won championships. Then take the Knicks... Amare and Carmelo are superstars. Their role players don't give them team added depth. They are top heavy and unsuccessful as of late.

I think this is using success to define role players vs superstars.

Every championship team has "depth" in that 8 players or so play and contribute. The question is replacability.

The Knick example is misleading because the "depth" of each team is the same, the problem is that the "top" of the knicks is just not as good as the top of the spurs, and doesn't complement each other as well.

Obviously we do not win without Posey or PJ Brown, but there were probably 75 players that year that we could have replaced either of those guys with and still won. For Rondo, probably 30. For Pierce and allen, maybe 10. For KG, maybe 3.

For the Spurs, when they were winning titles, there was probably 3 players they could have swapped Dunacan for, 10-15 for Parker/Ginobili. Then their revolving role players get a lot of credit, but they were revolving players for a reason; just because they contributed in those years does not mean other players wouldn't have contributed; there were probably 75 players that could have subbed into one of those spurs teams and still won. so that's a top heavy team.

Same for the Heat. That's a top heavy team, and by definition as a top heavy team, some scrubby role players will have to play, and anyone who plays at all will end up contributing something. Battier could have been replaced by 100 different players and been an improvement; the fact he had to contribute says more about how good the top heavy 3 were to carry those scrubs to a title.


Trying to build a "deep" team is different than a "top heavy" team that is filled out with cheap scrubs who still bring something to the table. For the purposes of this question I'm assuming that a "deep" team is one where no player is a top 10 player but no starter is not a top 50 player. In other words, each position would be replacable by about 15-25 different players. So like the Nuggets, the Hawks of a few years ago, detroit earlier, etc.

[Eja117]

I can't remember the last time a team won a ring because they got really good 10th and 11th men

[ImShakHeIsShaq]

Sure you need 2 top flight players but you need 3-8 to be good players... so depth!

[CelticG1]

I can't remember the last time a team won a ring because they got really good 10th and 11th men

Was that the question? I think it is a very very vague question.

Id say the Knicks are a top heavy team and the Celtics have better depth. I take the Celtics over them.

Im assuming the OP isn't comparing Miamis big 3 and a team with a bunch of good role players.

That's why I like to see comparative examples. I think that it really comes down to the particular players and the quality of depth. Obviously a guy like Lebron completely skews in favor of top heavy.

Id like to see in general what teams do better depth or top heavy.

[BostonNative]

The East is Top heavy and the West is depth....Can't think of a team that proves that wrong right now lol

Although, this year Heat has more depth now and are a problem this year no matter how you look at it.

[arambone]

I'd almost pay nba.com money to watch these pre-pre-season Celtics workouts. It's gonna be a beautiful winter.