I'd probably rather be the benchwarmer of a winning team. Being the star is great, but it gets boring after a while when you have no competition.
Being a benchwarmer, that would push me to work harder and practice more!
i would rather be a star on a losing team because my record could be 20-21. thats a losing record. take the 12-17 the charlotte bobcats who are in 7th place in the eastern conference. Their entire statring line up is all star candidates but they still have a losing record.
I'd rather be the star of a losing team then a benchwarmer of a winning team. If you're a benchwarmer you're really not doing anything. Although winning is fun, it makes me smile when I score.
I think this depends on the circumstances. Some players play to just join the team with no expectations of being a great player - they just play because its fun and their friends play. So they would rather sit the bench and cheer for a successful team.
If you are a die hard basketball player who wants to get a college scholarship and continue your career then the only way to get noticed is playing - no matter what your team does. A lot of college coaches look at how you would handle losing? How you encourage your teammates even though they are not that good.
So I think it all depends on your mindset towards the game and what type of player you are.
Does that make sense?
Founder of the worlds first ever online basketball camp, 3-Point Academy
Our home website; Innovative Athletes
Definitely the star of a losing team because I experience both sides (and the middle option of being a second string player) throughout the season on my three different teams. If you're going to be a benchwarmer then why play at all, the NBA is much more entertaining to watch. I'm not saying that bad players should jut give up but if you aren't getting the game time you want switch to another team. There's always someone who can use an extra player.
Depends on your age and goals. Being part of a winning team is a lot of fun and has a lot of lessons for you to learn. On the other hand, if you are early in your career and have ambitions to play a lot, then the experience of playing is more important.
Of course, if you are the star on a losing team you have to ask yourself why the team is losing. Is it because your team just isn't good (it happens) or because maybe you are too focused on being a star.
Just my opinion.
Hmm, it's hard for me to say. I've played both sides of this debate early on in my career. I think it's best to experience both at some point in life, depending on what kind of player you think you are. If you are the star of a losing team, then it will help you understand what it takes to win and help you appreciate winning more than it would be if you are used to being the star of a winning team more than often. If you're a benchwarmer of a winning team, then it can motivate you to impress the coaches enough to get off the bench and onto the floor so you can feel apart of that winning atmosphere.
If I had to choose though, I think I'd rather be the star of a losing team.
This mentality: Team first, Me second
id rather be the star of a losing team. this is coming from a winning team's star, but you have to make your worst players better in order to win.