Does a stars and scrubs or balanced approach work best in daily fantasy hoops?

Follow theScore's fantasy feed on Twitter (@theScoreFantasy) for the latest news, features and more.

Whether you're playing on Squad Up or on another daily fantasy site, there are two general strategies for divvying up your lineup budget: select two or three high-priced superstars and fill in the blanks with near-minimum priced bench players or simply build a balanced lineup of mid-tier players with middle-of-the-pack daily fantasy salaries.

Is one philosophy better than the other? Should their use be restricted to specific contest types? Let's look at the strengths and drawbacks of these two approaches:

Stars and Scrubs

Pros: The ceiling of the best players in the lineup will be incredibly high; who has a better chance at scoring 50 points, James Harden or Courtney Lee? The stars will also have a better shot at hitting bonus point qualifiers for recording double-doubles or triple-doubles.

On the other end of the spectrum, it doesn't take much statistical output for a scrub to return value against a near-minimum salary. If your minimum-priced center ends up with eight points, seven rebounds, and a block, that will typically be enough production to stay competitive in most contests.

Cons: If your star has an off-night - or sits in the second half of a blowout - your chance of placing in cash games will be slim, and you can forget about taking down a tournament contest.

One of the biggest reasons why your scrubs are priced near the salary floor is because they typically see limited action; you will not be able to overcome the loss of a superstar's production if 75 percent of your roster averages 15 minutes a game.

Balanced Salaries

Pros: Each of your players will have a realistic shot at having a good game, and even occasionally tally a tournament-value fantasy line depending on the matchup. They might be a secondary offensive player in most games, but the focus of the defense might elevate their production in some categories.

Cons: Being a secondary player can also backfire spectacularly. Stars boast a high ceiling and high floor. You're rarely going to see a player like Stephen Curry have an all-around poor performance; he scored fewer than 20 points in just 13 games last season.

On the other hand, Celtics SF Jae Crowder had 51 games where he played at least 20 minutes but failed to return cash-game value. His job is to support the Celtics' real offensive weapons, which often means his contributions don't show up in the box score.

Conclusion: There's no one-size-fits-all answer here. Sometimes several established high-usage stars will all see drops in pricing tied to their match-up and recent production. In this type of situation, you could still integrate aspects of a balanced lineup without sacrificing the ceilings that come with elite fantasy players.

Alternatively, there will be times when a player priced like a "scrub" actually has a much higher floor/ceiling combination due to context pricing algorithms cannot recognize. These players are the most valuable commodities in fantasy basketball and shouldn't be ignored simply for the sake of maintaining balanced salaries across your lineup.

For example, PG Briante Weber was forced into making a spot-start for the Memphis Grizzlies days after being signed to a 10-day contract because of significant injuries to the normal backcourt rotation. The sheer volume of minutes he'd have to play ensured a cash-game return relative to his salary. Knowing this minimum-priced player would have to play 30-plus minutes, wouldn't you get him in your lineup regardless of overarching philosophy?

In the end, you're at the mercy of the price and quality of players available on the slate. Balanced lineups should never exclude lower-priced players and you don't need to rely heavily on star-power when mid-tier options have great matchups. The moral of the story is that flexibility is crucial in DFS - and that includes approaching every slate with a willingness to adapt.