Do any athletes affect wins and losses more than nba superstars?

[Jasen777]

Starting pitchers in baseball.

In the games they play yes, but of course starter pitchers only play in like 20% of the games.

[Woodsanity]

Tennis players

u right, edited to say team sports.

tennis players in doubles

Basically any two person sport like synchronized swimming/diving, etc.

Honestly can't think of any with real team sports as in 5+ people per team.

[meekrab]

NFL QBs would be the closest ones imo. They don’t play both sides of the ball but they have full control over the offense and the difference between an elite QB and an average one probably is the same advantage as having a superstar NBA player and a lower level all star.

I would agree with the caveat that I don't think even an elite QB could make the playoffs if the rest of the roster is just a disaster.

We have seen superstar players in the NBA drag rosters that had no other even above average players on them to a low playoff seed before.

More than 50% of the league makes the playoffs in the NBA, and if you count the play-in that has ballooned to a ridiculous 2/3rds. In the NFL it's more like 45%.

[benson13]

Starting pitchers in baseball.

Could not disagree more. Pitchers only affect one side of the game and there are just more baseball players in a game.

There is no team sport like basketball where superstars dictate the outcome of a game.

I believe the great pitchers make less money than the great players at other positions. In any single game the starting pitcher has the biggest impact, but they’re playing only one out of every five games (besides Shohei.)

32 of the highest 100 paid players in the majors are starting pitchers. Don't underestimate the effect a dominant pitcher can have. You get to a seven game series in the playoffs with two elite starting pitchers, and you're really expecting to win four games in their starts alone.

That said, I think NBA or NHL stars are the ones who affect games the most of any team sport. There's just so much they can do, and they can do it the entire game every game.

[Harry Garris]

NFL QBs would be the closest ones imo. They don’t play both sides of the ball but they have full control over the offense and the difference between an elite QB and an average one probably is the same advantage as having a superstar NBA player and a lower level all star.

I would agree with the caveat that I don't think even an elite QB could make the playoffs if the rest of the roster is just a disaster.

We have seen superstar players in the NBA drag rosters that had no other even above average players on them to a low playoff seed before.

More than 50% of the league makes the playoffs in the NBA, and if you count the play-in that has ballooned to a ridiculous 2/3rds. In the NFL it's more like 45%.

The 2006 Lakers had the 10th best record in the NBA with Kobe, Lamar Odom, and a bunch of replacement level players. That's probably the worst roster I can think of around a superstar that had a good season overall

[SkyHookFTW]

Definitely NFL QB. If you don't have a good QB, you have no chance no matter how good your defense is at this point in the NFL. Very similar to NBA where without an offensive superstar you have almost no chance to win the title.

Hmm...2000 Raven's QB Trent Dilfer says hello, a truly bottom-tier QB. But that Raven's defense was one of the top three ever, next to Buddy Ryan's 85 Bears and 90-91 Eagles.

Yes, it was an outlier for sure. Might not see that again ever with current NFL rules.

[dhsilv2]

Starting pitchers in baseball.

Could not disagree more. Pitchers only affect one side of the game and there are just more baseball players in a game.

There is no team sport like basketball where superstars dictate the outcome of a game.

I mean if you pitch a no hitter...and some pitchers are also hitters.

[SeattleJazzFan]

pitchers. i hate pinning wins and losses on pitchers - win/loss record for pitchers is perhaps the worst stat in sports, but having said that from a team sports perspective they do have more control over the outcome than any other individual in any sport. as was said earlier, they can strike out the side and end an inning without any significant (the catcher has to catch the ball have the pitcher approve which pitches he's going to throw) contribution from anybody else.

[AbeVigodaLive]

Starting pitchers in baseball.

In the games they play yes, but of course starter pitchers only play in like 20% of the games.

... well... at least for the first two times through the lineup.

[hardenASG13]

Definitely NFL QB. If you don't have a good QB, you have no chance no matter how good your defense is at this point in the NFL. Very similar to NBA where without an offensive superstar you have almost no chance to win the title.

Hmm...2000 Raven's QB Trent Dilfer says hello, a truly bottom-tier QB. But that Raven's defense was one of the top three ever, next to Buddy Ryan's 85 Bears and 90-91 Eagles.

Yes, it was an outlier for sure. Might not see that again ever with current NFL rules.

Yeah that was over 20 years ago, things have changed. But yeah maybe that Ravens D could get it done today, they were amazing.

[BmanInBigD]

I WAS gonna say QB in football until I remembered Nick Foles winning a Super Bowl with the Eagles just a few years ago. So no, no other athletes affect winning more than elite basketball players.

[Duke4life831]

Hot NHL.goaltending

This is probably the correct answer. I would actually even make the argument that a hot NHL goalie has an even bigger impact than NBA superstars.

[shakes0]

NHL goalie is the only obvious answer.

[snaquille oatmeal]

does the way they have to play both ends and be impactful exist in other team sports? Or is there another sport where the one guy has this much of an effect that it can outweigh what a guy like lebron giannis or any of these do it all guys do in the NBA?

Tennis
Golf
Track and field

[madmaxmedia]

Definitely NFL QB. If you don't have a good QB, you have no chance no matter how good your defense is at this point in the NFL. Very similar to NBA where without an offensive superstar you have almost no chance to win the title.

Hmm...2000 Raven's QB Trent Dilfer says hello, a truly bottom-tier QB. But that Raven's defense was one of the top three ever, next to Buddy Ryan's 85 Bears and 90-91 Eagles.

Yes, it was an outlier for sure. Might not see that again ever with current NFL rules.

That's the main thing, the NFL is now really pass dominant. Running backs don't get picked in the first round, unless they are viewed as super special.

[madmaxmedia]

NFL QBs would be the closest ones imo. They don’t play both sides of the ball but they have full control over the offense and the difference between an elite QB and an average one probably is the same advantage as having a superstar NBA player and a lower level all star.

Pretty sure NFL QB’s are the single most impactful players in the American pro sports. Every great player needs guys around him, but NFL franchises are built around that starting QB now.

And NBA teams aren’t built around superstars?

If you assume an NBA superstar can impact each possession they are on the floor both offensively and defensively no other sport would even come close.

Jokic for example averaged 100 touches per game and that doesn’t count any defensive possessions

Not sure when I suggested the bolded?

A QB carries greater offensive load than any single NBA player IMO. The thing is that it's a singular position, whereas NBA superstars are found at multiple positions. All NFL teams largely live and die with their QB's (I think the NFL would be better with more balance.)

But I get your argument and am not trying to change your mind. The point about touches is good too. The sports are very different so it can be hard to compare. One sport has 5 guys on the court that play both ends, the other has 11 guys each of whom only play 1 side. QB is totally outsized in comparison to 21 other guys, but an NBA star does a lot on the court with only 4 other teammates at any time.

The year after Michael Jordan retired, the Bulls had a great season. Then there was the year Tom Brady missed on the Pats, and I think with Matt Cassell (IIRC?) the Pats had a great year as well. There are far more examples in both spots of teams losing their stars and doing a lot worse.

[madmaxmedia]

Could not disagree more. Pitchers only affect one side of the game and there are just more baseball players in a game.

There is no team sport like basketball where superstars dictate the outcome of a game.

I believe the great pitchers make less money than the great players at other positions. In any single game the starting pitcher has the biggest impact, but they’re playing only one out of every five games (besides Shohei.)

32 of the highest 100 paid players in the majors are starting pitchers. Don't underestimate the effect a dominant pitcher can have. You get to a seven game series in the playoffs with two elite starting pitchers, and you're really expecting to win four games in their starts alone.

That said, I think NBA or NHL stars are the ones who affect games the most of any team sport. There's just so much they can do, and they can do it the entire game every game.

Oh yeah for sure- I just mean that the fact they only start a 5th of their games generally reduces their impact mathematically. If you got a real workhouse #1, it's possible in a World Series he could play games 1, 4, and 7.

[nikster]

Starting pitchers in baseball.

Could not disagree more. Pitchers only affect one side of the game and there are just more baseball players in a game.

There is no team sport like basketball where superstars dictate the outcome of a game.

A superstar center in hockey can come very close to doing the same. Plays offense and defense, controls the flow of the game. The basketball player does get more playing time during the game though.

A superior pitcher or hockey goalie can hold the opposition to zero.

The difference between a top tier QB and lower tier QB is immense on the offensive flow of a NFL game. A superstar QB helps his defense in ways the average person doesn't understand. A top-tier QB can help his defense without playing defense.

I still think its a big gap with Hockey. Star Hockey players only play 1/3rd of the game, NBA players will easily push 80% in the playoffs and rare cases close to 100%. A goalie only plays one end of the floor.

[SkyHookFTW]

I believe the great pitchers make less money than the great players at other positions. In any single game the starting pitcher has the biggest impact, but they’re playing only one out of every five games (besides Shohei.)

32 of the highest 100 paid players in the majors are starting pitchers. Don't underestimate the effect a dominant pitcher can have. You get to a seven game series in the playoffs with two elite starting pitchers, and you're really expecting to win four games in their starts alone.

That said, I think NBA or NHL stars are the ones who affect games the most of any team sport. There's just so much they can do, and they can do it the entire game every game.

Oh yeah for sure- I just mean that the fact they only start a 5th of their games generally reduces their impact mathematically. If you got a real workhouse #1, it's possible in a World Series he could play games 1, 4, and 7.

There are a few instances of a pitcher starting and winning three games in a World Series. The last was Mickey Lolich of the Tigers, when in the 1968 series he won games 2, 5, and 7. He even hit a home run in game 5, the only home run of his entire career. Good timing there.

[SkyHookFTW]

Pretty sure NFL QB’s are the single most impactful players in the American pro sports. Every great player needs guys around him, but NFL franchises are built around that starting QB now.

And NBA teams aren’t built around superstars?

If you assume an NBA superstar can impact each possession they are on the floor both offensively and defensively no other sport would even come close.

Jokic for example averaged 100 touches per game and that doesn’t count any defensive possessions

Not sure when I suggested the bolded?

A QB carries greater offensive load than any single NBA player IMO. The thing is that it's a singular position, whereas NBA superstars are found at multiple positions. All NFL teams largely live and die with their QB's (I think the NFL would be better with more balance.)

But I get your argument and am not trying to change your mind. The point about touches is good too. The sports are very different so it can be hard to compare. One sport has 5 guys on the court that play both ends, the other has 11 guys each of whom only play 1 side. QB is totally outsized in comparison to 21 other guys, but an NBA star does a lot on the court with only 4 other teammates at any time.

The year after Michael Jordan retired, the Bulls had a great season. Then there was the year Tom Brady missed on the Pats, and I think with Matt Cassell (IIRC?) the Pats had a great year as well. There are far more examples in both spots of teams losing their stars and doing a lot worse.

The one thing I can say about a QB is that there is no one else to pick up the slack if he screws up. At least on a basketball court, someone else can initiate the offense or score from the floor. And a poor QB who can't move the team hurts his defense, as they must be on the field more.