Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Discussion Revisit- Ultimate: Team Game or Game of Stars?


Early in the season, I discussed the Boston Celtics and asked if their ability to dominate with 3 big stars and a roster full of cheap depth players was the way to go about winning a championship. I also wondered if Ultimate is a game where 3 stars can make all the difference. The opinions were varied.

The Celtics high risk 'win now' strategy paid off. The big 3 played all year and played relatively well in the playoffs. They secured low cost veteran talent (Cassell and P.J. brown) to comtemplate the bench of James Posey, Tony Allen, Kendrick Perkins, Big Baby Davis, Eddie House. The bench played well beyond expection. Rajon Rondo turned out to be a VERY decent starting point guard (He still can't shoot, but his efficiency and speed was well above perceptions of him).

The day after their NBA championship, I really think it was both the bench and the Big 3 that carried the day in the playoffs. The Big 3 gets all the glory, but there were games when Garnett missed jump shot after jump shot, Allen went cold for the entire Detroit series, and Pierce failed to dominate.

Cue the bench.

Back to ultimate. I still see the big guys on top ultimate teams and recognize that they win many games for their teams. But they need a strong supporting cast to do what they do, as much as the bench needs them to win.

What did you think of the Celtics run? Was the Big 3 as big as the media tells us?

No comments: