I usually read this guy's stuff just to keep up on things, but in this post he passes along the results of a study that I thought some of you might find interesting. Here's the gist: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wray-...ketballs-th_b_5191936.html?utm_hp_ref=science I'm just not sure I buy this. I'm not saying I can defeat it, but something just doesn't seem right. I posted this because I've noticed some of you know probably 20x what I do about the NBA and it seems that league might be the best to use for this notion. So help me out here. If this theory is true, would it suggest the Heat would have gotten worse had they added Chris Paul or Kevin Love to the roster? Or, God-forbid, both! Can we apply this to the original dream-team? Is it a lazy assumption that the most talented players aren't as capable of playing selflessly? I wonder if it might be - or perhaps I'm thinking of the exceptions that prove the rule... What about the stat they used to measure "talent"? I'm familiar with WAR in baseball, but evidently (and logically I guess) baseball isn't a good example of this too-much-talent concept. I'm no Heat fan, but are they really a good example of this theory? They just made the finals 4 straight times! On the other hand, having watched some of the finals, were they really even more talented than the Spurs? Some of you will know better than me, but after Lebron, I'm taking a bunch of Spurs if I'm picking a team from those players combined. Sorry for the rambling, but I thought this has always been an interesting concept at least.