Building an NBA Champion (or at least a Playoff Team)

2004 – Pistons won, not the Rockets

In my mind, you need 4 things to be a contender: one exceptional perimeter defender, one exceptional post defender, one exceptional perimeter scorer, and one exceptional post scorer, although teams occasionally get away with being rather mediocre in one of those areas. In addition, it’s nice to have good chemistry and a nice mix of veterans and young players, with the vets being more important to contend.

The superstar theory is just kind of a result of this I think. Most superstars are going to be exceptional in at least one of those areas, and many of them excel in two. Think of it this way: the Lakers have a luxury in having Kobe as an elite perimeter scorer as well as an elite perimeter defender. In my mind, they already have much of what they need from just one player. Obviously, getting Gasol helped with the post aspect of the game.

Bottom line- I agree with you, but I think it takes more than just having one or two superstars to win. Every year, more superstars lose a championship than win one, and as the Pistons showed, as long as you’re well balanced, you can sometimes get away without having a superstar. In addition to the superstar(s), it matters how they fit with the rest of the team and what their teammates can bring to the table.

However, isn’t it true that players awarded with all-star status are almost always from successful teams and a player of equal or near equal ability laboring on a crap team never gets the recognition?

My point being, with your numerical formula it looks like the Warriors are hopeless whereas they may already have a piece or two in place.

I believe that claiming an Allstar “causes” a team’s playoff success is not a conclusive hypothesis. There is, of course, a strong correlation. But which direction does the Cause —> Effect arrow go? Do Allstars cause team success? Or does team success “cause” All star appearances? I think there is evidence for both, especially when you look beyond championship caliber teams and more at overall playoff teams.

We need big bounce back from injury years from these 4 guys if we want to stay in the playoff hunt:
Azubuike, Wright, Biedrins, and Randolph.

The definition of a big year is dependent on the player.

Pretty simple for Biedrins; we need him to get back to being a double double machine. 10 ppg and 11 rebs would be a grade A year from Andris.

Azubuike, Randolph, or Wright need to have a big year by becoming our 3rd 20ppg performer. Safe to assume Curry will score 20 and Monta will score at least 20. But we need that 3rd guy. We won 48 games when BD Monta and Jack all averaged 20+. That’s not to say that’s the only way to keep playoff hopes alive, but it would help.

Another realistic scenario:
Say Azubuike and Wright are our starters and they combine to average 30 ppg and 15 rebs, that would also be terrific. But that would mean we would also need our bench to consistantly put up 35ppg along with 15+ rebs.

Defense, of course we need to play defense. This might not be the best collection of individual defenders, but this might be the most quick and athletic team we’ve ever had, thus team defense, or zone defense is preferable. We have the speed, quickness, and athleticism to do it, hopefully the coaches can instil the proper discipline to get the job done.

Basically, we need a lot of things to go right for our complementary players and coaches. And of course we can’t have any long term injuries.

Here’s to be significantly injury free for the 2010-2011 season!!

1. Warriors have 0 chance to get a championship with current core (who would’ve thought?)
2. Stephcurryforgovernor is a troll and it’s best to ignore him

3.

2000 – Shaq was just abusing an old worn out Rik Smits it was sad and their only backups were pathetic that they ended up putting PF Dale Davis on him a lot. Lost in Shaqs monster game 1 was Kobe who led the team in assists, limited his shots, and hounded Reggie into a 1-16 game, he was as key to game 1 as Shaq. Then he sprain his ankle pretty bad early in game 2 and LA barely rode Shaq to a win. Second game without Kobe… Shaq piled up the stats, but lost. Kobe comes back early, puts up a monster game and they take a commanding lead. Kobe had a horrid game 5, but had a very solid game 6 and LA won. Shaq definitely MVP, he was destructive, but Kobe had an underrated series.

2001 – Kobe dominates the Kings then Spurs including back to back 45-10 games to help the Lakers get to the finals. Game 1 Kobe didn’t play that great but they continually fed Shaq to monster numbers 40-20 but he missed 12 fts, 11 shots and 4 TOs to the tune of 21 wasted possessions, (Kobe had 19) He also had no blocks and allowed Dikembe to produce a very efficient game. Monster numbers, overrated game, loss… They both picked it up the next game, Kobe in particular while also helping to limit AI severly in the second half to get the win. Again in game 2 they both dominate, but Shaq fouls out and Kobe out duals AI for win 2. Game 3 Kobe goes into facilitator mode and finishes an assist shy of a triple double while harassing the crap out of McKey and AI. Lakers win. Kobe and Shaq have equally nice games in the clincher and close it out despite many TOs and missed FTs by Shaq. Great series by both guys but Shaq got such monster numbers in the loss that he was inflated for the rest of the series. Despite Shaq’s dominance, this series could have easily been Kobe’s MVP.

2002 – Again Kobe rallies LA against the tough Spurs as Shaq struggles. Then against the Kings, both played near equally, each struggling in the losses and both starring in the wins. Then they face NJ in the finals that has no true center and Lakers sweep. Easy MVP for Shaq but Kobe played very well, excellent defense and efficient offensively.

2003 – Shaq injured and out of shape most of the year, Kobe carries team, Kobe dominates the Spurs, Shaq plays decent, just not enough as Spurs take the chip.

yeah. (not my post, but pretty much all I wanted to say)(maybe you should look beyond your calculator for once governor)

You base your point values on accomplishments that are subjective and don’t necessarily reflect how good a player is. Kobe wasn’t named to a first team all NBA team in certain years and in certain years he was. I would guess that once Pau joined the team Kobe got more respect, which in your system gives him more points. Kobe didn’t really change that much though, Pau was the difference. I’m probably not expressing this point as clearly as I could but, although I agree with your basic premise (which I take as being, we won’t be good unless we get at least one really good player) your system for evaluating players is extremely flawed. Players get more points for having better supporting casts, because all-stars and all-nba-players are almost always taken from winning teams. So in the context of your evaluating system, are the teams winning because they have players that are evaluated highly, or are the players evaluated highly because they’re on winning teams.

I agree with the basic premise that championships are rarely won without at least one extremely talented player, and usually at least a very good player to support them.

Kobe Bryant as a top twenty-five player of all time? Heck, I can name three shooting guards— Clyde Drexler, Sidney Moncrief, Dwayne Wade— off the top of my head that I would consider better than Kobe.

But… hey, maybe.

I’m going to stop feeding him(them) at least here.

Think about it if you have a lot of good players who prevent opponents from scoring and score more efficiently it doesn’t matter if they put up monster numbers individually.

The problem is that the NBA wants to have huge stars because that is how they get money, and owners want huge stars because they want to sell tickets. Even if a team manages to get a bunch of players who put up similar not all that impressive statistical lines but beat opponents one player will be singled out as the “star.”

The Boston Celtics have a bunch of stars but last year most of their numbers did not reflect that necessarily yet they did well. I guess Rondo did put up a very good line, but no one absolutely jumps out as a dominant force.