PonyFans.com

A study published this summer in Psychological Science, "The Too-Much-Talent Effect: Team Interdependence Determines When More Talent Is Too Much or Not Enough," suggests there is a limit to the benefit top talents bring to a team.

Scientific American reports on the findings:

"For both basketball and soccer, they found that top talent did in fact predict team success, but only up to a point. Furthermore, there was not simply a point of diminishing returns with respect to top talent, there was in fact a cost. . . .

Why is too much talent a bad thing? Think teamwork. In many endeavors, success requires collaborative, cooperative work towards a goal that is beyond the capability of any one individual. . . . The basketball player chasing a point record, for example, may cost the team by taking risky shots instead of passing to a teammate who is open and ready to score.

. . . Swaab and colleagues found that the percentage of top talent on a team affects intrateam coordination. For the basketball study, teams with the highest levels of top performers had fewer assists and defensive rebounds, and lower field-goal percentages."

I infer from this study that a team with a high level of talent that plays hard, plays together, plays smart, and has fun can compete and win with a squad chock full of one and dones.

Here's the URL for the article -- http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ch-talent/ -- and for the research -- http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ch-talent/.

I think it's a better problem than the alternative -- see: the Football board

It sure sucked for Kentucky last year.

East Coast Mustang wrote:I think it's a better problem than the alternative -- see: the Football board

The study found a direct correlation between talent and success, up to the point that an excess of highly talented players led to a lack of teamwork in basketball and soccer. It was not so much a problem in baseball and while football was not examined, I suspect it would follow the baseball model.

But PF probably isn't the best forum to discuss academic research

max,
I was making a joke -- I think there's definitely a good point being made in the article. MAy help explain why teams like VCU, Wichita, and Creighton have become contenders in March despite not signing many, if any, blue-chip prospects.

East Coast Mustang wrote:max,
I was making a joke -- I think there's definitely a good point being made in the article. MAy help explain why teams like VCU, Wichita, and Creighton have become contenders in March despite not signing many, if any, blue-chip prospects.

Making a joke? You should have said BAZINGA!

But seriously, your VCU, Wichita, and Creighton examples make my point better than I did.

Nope ...all of the talent breeds success.

Ask TCU, Baylor, OU or anyone in the Big 12 if that is a problem. #championproblems are good to have

We have guards for the future but we don't have enough bigs for the future. So we still need talent. I think 2 bigs need to be in this class.

I think you see it crop up in football as well- look at Florida, Texas, USC (although they had some scholarship sanctions), Michigan--- all big programs that recruit very well and aren't living up to the hype on the field. Meanwhile, Kansas State has like five 4-stars on their entire roster every year and are routinely a Top 25 team. Oregon also doesnt always recruit top classes but are still in contention for Pac-12 and national titles. TCU and Baylor may be the two best teams in the Big 12 this year and neither are signing classes that are at the top of the conference

You need talent (obviously), but solid coaching that can manage egos, develop talent, and get the best out of players is the real key. Not really an Earth-shattering revelation, I know....

East Coast Mustang wrote:I think you see it crop up in football as well- look at Florida, Texas, USC (although they had some scholarship sanctions), Michigan--- all big programs that recruit very well and aren't living up to the hype on the field. Meanwhile, Kansas State has like five 4-stars on their entire roster every year and are routinely a Top 25 team. Oregon also doesnt always recruit top classes but are still in contention for Pac-12 and national titles. TCU and Baylor may be the two best teams in the Big 12 this year and neither are signing classes that are at the top of the conference

You need talent (obviously), but solid coaching that can manage egos, develop talent, and get the best out of players is the real key. Not really an Earth-shattering revelation, I know....

I think we should share a drink together my friend.. We think pretty much alike

Was this article written by Josh Pastner to justify his poor coaching?

FriscoChuck wrote:It sure sucked for Kentucky last year.

Ha Ha…my first thought as well.

Think about injury, academic ineligibility or (god forbid and I doubt it happens here…) somebody decides to hold up the 7-11.

The article makes good points but I think you are better off bruising an ego than needing one.

#elitebasketballproblems

We've come a long way.

It comes to mind that GT teams under Bobby Cremins had nine straight NCAA appearances starting in 1985 followed by a trip to the NIT in 1994 and another NCAA invitation in 1996. His tenure included one ACC tourney win, one ACC regular season championship and a Final Four loss. My memory is that Cremins often depended on six or seven players who got a lot of minutes. The Atlanta newspaper writers sometimes commented on the thin Tech squad. As such it was a different approach than LB has brought to SMU with talk of having a credible two deep this season.

This was an interesting post to read, but until we see something bad happen I'm happy to let Coach Brown run with it. I will say that I wondered sometimes last season, when Nic was on the bench, whether the previous PG who transferred might not have been a better option than we had available.

Go Ponies.