Which team sport relies the most on individual talent?

[Maverick 791]

Does having Tom Brady as your football team's quarterback guarantee you at least 10 wins? How about Lebron James, leaving Cleveland and as a result the Cavaliers go from championship-contender to losing twenty-some games in a row?

 

Having an ace pitcher? or an unstoppable goalie in hockey/soccer? Whatever the case is, which team sport relies the most on individual talent?

 

My vote is for baseball. I chose baseball mainly because each play is a battle between the pitcher and the batter...mano e mano. Sure, once the ball is hit the other players get brought into the picture but the pitcher has the ability to not even bring it to that point. Hockey was a close second. Although, if you watched Barcelona with and without Lionel Messi on the field, your opinion could be changed... :grinno:

Edited April 4, 2011 by Maverick

[Bay 2,003]

Basketball.

[ATL_Predator+ 1,196]

Imma have to say basketball...i love basketball to death..but lemme just say this.

Look at some of the best teams in the NBA right now, or in college. Look at the Mavericks, Heat, Celtics, Magic. All 4 of those teams have at least 1 player that carries them...(2 for Miami)so they either live or die by those players, but still do well. Then you look at teams like the Lakers, Bulls, Spurs, they all play great team basketball even with superstars on their teams. It shows that basketball is ultimately a team sport...but you take a look at teams like the Hawks, Rockets, Portland...and there really isn't one superstar..hence why they arent near the top of their respective conferences..

[KiLaSix9+ 398]

Imma have to say basketball...i love basketball to death..but lemme just say this.

Look at some of the best teams in the NBA right now, or in college. Look at the Mavericks, Heat, Celtics, Magic. All 4 of those teams have at least 1 player that carries them...(2 for Miami)so they either live or die by those players, but still do well. Then you look at teams like the Lakers, Bulls, Spurs, they all play great team basketball even with superstars on their teams. It shows that basketball is ultimately a team sport...but you take a look at teams like the Hawks, Rockets, Portland...and there really isn't one superstar..hence why they arent near the top of their respective conferences..

I'd have to say thats wrong. If anything, the last few years have shown us that one guy cant carry a team to a championship. KG was one the most dominant PF's in the game for a while and in a shitty team with no support, he only got as far as the Western Finals. It wasn't until he got to Boston where he tasted true success.

 

Celtics, Magic, Heat and Mavs may have a star that fuels the team but none of those guys carry a team. The Mavs success this year can be attributed to their depth. Magic depend on Dwight but Jameer is a big part of that team and without him their a 6th seed right now. With the Heat, Lebron is still the focus but they have nights were it comes down to Wade being clutch.

 

Then again, I agree with the second part of your post which kinda contradicts the first part lol.

 

Edit: As for my answer to this poll, I can't say. I don't think its basketball or football, as they both just rely on team play rather than 1 individual guy carrying a team offensively and defensively.

 

Don't follow the other listed sports which is why I can't answer but it does make sense what Mav said about baseball and their pitchers.

Edited April 5, 2011 by KiLaSix9

[ATL_Predator+ 1,196]

I'd have to say thats wrong. If anything, the last few years have shown us that one guy cant carry a team to a championship. KG was one the most dominant PF's in the game for a while and in a shitty team with no support, he only got as far as the Western Finals. It wasn't until he got to Boston where he tasted true success.

 

Celtics, Magic, Heat and Mavs may have a star that fuels the team but none of those guys carry a team. The Mavs success this year can be attributed to their depth. Magic depend on Dwight but Jameer is a big part of that team and without him their a 6th seed right now. With the Heat, Lebron is still the focus but they have nights were it comes down to Wade being clutch.

 

Then again, I agree with the second part of your post which kinda contradicts the first part lol.

 

Edit: As for my answer to this poll, I can't say. I don't think its basketball or football, as they both just rely on team play rather than 1 individual guy carrying a team offensively and defensively.

 

Don't follow the other listed sports which is why I can't answer but it does make sense what Mav said about baseball and their pitchers.

I'm just looking at the past few winners of the title...lakers...celtics..and more lakers. Honestly, the Celtics had a strong 3 in Allen, KG, and Pierce...but the rise of Rondo and the impact of role bench players really helped the Celtics make a few runs over the past few years. I mean, look at Leon Powe, Eddie House, Kendrick Perkins, Big Baby, all those guys there aren't superstar players..but as a unit they all made each other better. Now that I read it...my last post kinda does contradict lol.

[NaTaS+ 958]

In no other sports does an individuals stats mean more than in baseball but I think to be worth ANYTHING a basketball team needs a star. Obviously having a star and winning games does not equal a championship (See 2007-2010 Cavs) but you're relevant. You can put 3 stars on a roster in the NFL and that wont even mean you'll win games (Dallas?).

[sweetness34 142]

I'm going with baseball, like you said, if you have a dominating pitcher then you can pretty much dominate the game. But, with so many games played and rotating pitchers you're going to need a few good ones. Basketball was a close second, with the cavs being the main example.

 

Football is by far the most team sport in the world. You can have a team full of superstars and still not be shit if everyone doesn't click. My senior year of high school my team by far had the most talented team in the state, my roommate who played for a school that hated mine even admits it. We won a lot of games, but if we didn't click we got our asses kicked, case in point the state championship game we got our shit rocked because we weren't playing like a team.

[Guest Durant4MVP]

In no other sports does an individuals stats mean more than in baseball but I think to be worth ANYTHING a basketball team needs a star. Obviously having a star and winning games does not equal a championship (See 2007-2010 Cavs) but you're relevant. You can put 3 stars on a roster in the NFL and that wont even mean you'll win games (Dallas?).

 

This is pretty much what I was going to say. A team full of roleplayers won't get you anywhere in basketball. Without a true superstar you're not going to go very far in the postseason.

[rzb+ 367]

My dilemma was between baseball and basketball. After reading the comments, I'm definitely going basketball. The strongest argument I've heard for baseball is a strong pitcher. Well, that pitcher is rotated.. so you can't get the same results as you can a basketball player that's playing a huge chunk of minutes in every game. Plus, the fact that there's less people on the court than on a baseball field shows that one person can make a larger difference.

 

Great discussion.

[blotsfan 2,112]

Easily basketball for the reasons everyone has said. Goalies can make a big impact in hockey, but history shows that a team is more likely to win with top skaters than a top goalie.

[BwareDWare94 723]

Excuse me? It's baseball, hands down. Why? Because each player has his own zone on defense. It's not like basketball, where you can help your lesser defenders. Each of these guys has to have the individual talent to control their area. Plus, a good pitcher is sometimes all you need to become a legitimate contender (didn't any of you watch the Rangers last year?)

Offensively, it's only one player at a time coming up to bat. It's not like it's a collective attack, like basketball. Baseball requires individual talent more than any other sport. By a great margin.

[rzb+ 367]

Excuse me? It's baseball, hands down. Why? Because each player has his own zone on defense. It's not like basketball, where you can help your lesser defenders. Each of these guys has to have the individual talent to control their area.

 

What? Baseball requires at least two people in every single play. How is that individual talent? You can throw someone out at first from behind the third base line? Awesome, but your first baseman can't catch shit. Oh, you struck out the batter? Well the catcher muffed the catch and couldn't retrieve the ball in time to throw him out. And what you described in the last sentence is called teamwork, not individual talent.

Plus, a good pitcher is sometimes all you need to become a legitimate contender (didn't any of you watch the Rangers last year?)

 

As I said earlier, he's rotated. A player that doesn't even get to play every game is who a team relies on? That makes completely no sense. Plus, the pitcher relies a load on the team behind him.

 

Offensively, it's only one player at a time coming up to bat. It's not like it's a collective attack, like basketball. Baseball requires individual talent more than any other sport. By a great margin.

 

Yes they bat once at a time but that's no different than basketball players shoot one at a time, same with soccer. But basketball can oop it and soccer can cross it.. well then what's a sacrifice bunt? A strategy that requires more than one person. Baseball's logic in this discussion becomes even more flawed.

Edited April 5, 2011 by rzb

[BwareDWare94 723]

 

It's way different from basketball or soccer players shooting one at a time. His teammates don't pass him the damn bat or throw the ball to him. Crimony.

[rzb+ 367]

It's way different from basketball or soccer players shooting one at a time. His teammates don't pass him the damn bat or throw the ball to him. Crimony.

It's still more than one player on a bunt.. sacrifice fly.. yeah?

[KiLaSix9+ 398]

I still haven't read a good argument for basketball except those that explain how its definitely a TEAM sport.

[blotsfan 2,112]

How often does the basketball team with the best player miss the playoffs 3 out of 4 years.?

Because last I checked the Cardinals have Albert Pujols and did just that.

[RANGA+ 1,210]

Curling.

[HadenIsland23 42]

Baseball.

 

In every other sport, a bad play( an example would be a missed shot in basketball, or a missed block in football)or a bad player(Derrick Anderson in the NFL, Kwame Brown in the NBA) can be covered up by a good play( Put back off the missed shot, someone else picks up the block) or a good player( An amazing catch off a bad throw.) In baseball you have to be individually good, if you strike out no one can help cover that up, if you ground into a double play, no one can make a rebound or catch to save you(refereeing to the NBA/NFL.)

[Titanswin472 29]

Definitely Basketball, just look at the Cavs with LeQuit and without him.

[oochymp 2,393]

I'm going with baseball, like you said, if you have a dominating pitcher then you can pretty much dominate the game. But, with so many games played and rotating pitchers you're going to need a few good ones. Basketball was a close second, with the cavs being the main example.

I was going to make the same point, in a seven game series your star pitcher will only play in at most 3 games, and that only if he can start the series, so he may be able to take over a game, but in baseball that doesn't really mean that much.

 

As for basketball, it doesn't matter how great of a star you have, he's gotta have a supporting cast, look at Lebron last year in Cleveland, sure he's a superstar, but his teammates just sat back and watched him play, even Jordan needed Pippen and Rodman.

 

As for my answer, I went with Hockey, and maybe I'm just still a little bitter from last year's playoffs, but Jaroslav Halak showed last year how much a hot goalie (not even a great goalie, but a good goalie playing great for a stretch) can take over a series and take a team deep in the playoffs that has no business going deep in the playoffs. If you want another example, I'll go with USA Hockey, there was no reason that team should have gotten to the gold medal game undefeated, but Ryan Miller played out of his mind and carried the team there. Sure, championship teams are usually built on skating, but championship teams are also typically built solid all over, the argument here (as I understand it) is if you take a really bad team and give them one star player in what sport can that one player have the biggest impact, and IMO that's a hockey goalie.

Edited April 10, 2011 by oochymp

[Barracuda 629]

Baseball hands down.

 

Every play is based on 2 players going one on one. The pitcher and the batter. If the batter is struckout he adds an out and the team, as a whole, is closer to losing. The pitcher makes a bad throw and it turns into a run for the opposing team. But like said before, sacrifice bunts and sac. flys are all used to help the team succeed. The difference...?

 

The difference is a gameplan. In Basketball it is planned that you're players are gonna set up a pick and roll and it's gonna enable your star to hit an open 3. The QB calls a play that freezes the linebacker and leaves a TE wide open in the endzone. But, in Baseball nothing can really be planned. Sure, in certain situations you know what you're going to do. But it all depends on that pitch and then if it is hit, it depends if that shortstop can get there fast enough, it depends if the fielder is able to scoop the ball up and make an accurate throw back to the second baseman, who then in turn, has to make the catch and tag the runner. The same for on the offense, who's on base, how many outs, the count, holes in the infield. But it depends if he can hit the ball. So on so on...