Dirk: Debunking the Big 3 Theory

the quote from Grousbeck, about 24 of the last 25 champions having three all-stars, or is it , ‘no team has ever won a championship without the Big Three method ’ ? The two claims are obviously different, and the blanket generalisation about no team winning without a big three (one team excepted) sounds like hyperbole. How is ’all star player’ defined ? Dal included two former all-stars, Kidd and Marion, one with all-n.b.a. credentials for multiple seasons.

Even if you’re going to look at it in that shallow of a manner, the facts are wrong. Who was the 3rd All-Star around Kobe and Shaq? Who exactly was Miami’s Big 3 in 2006? The Rockets? They had Drexler one year, but the other year, Hakeem was the only player to average more than 14 points. Would you also like to explain to me who exactly was a star on the Pistons other than Isiah? It’s pretty hard for me to conclusively say that any of Rodman, Laimbeer, and Dumars was their next best player. In continuation of that, do Horace Grant and Dennis also count as the Bull’s 3rd star? There’s already so much wrong with looking at a team in terms of just: “Do they have 3 stars?” The fact that they had the gall to say that 24 of the last 25 teams have used that equation makes it even dumber. You could argue with most teams all the way down the list. There may be some teams that do in fact have 3 stars, but those so much more that goes into winning championships. To judge based off that wouldn’t be a fair assessment at all in comparing these teams to Dirk’s.

That being said, all the respect in the world to Dirk for stepping up and leading this team to the championship. He was great in these playoffs. But it’s hard for me to continue to listen to anyone suggesting that he did it alone. No player ever has, and no player ever will. Obviously his burden is larger than the rest of his teammates, but that comes with being the team’s leader. It does not necessarily mean his burden was bigger than leader’s of previous championship teams. I think we all understand that the Mavericks had an extremely deep and motivated team in these playoffs. Every player all the way down to Brian Cardinal and Ian Mahinmi played an important role at times. Barea and Terry were at times the most amazing players on the floor. Tyson was amazing defensively and so was Marion. Dirk was the best player and leader of a very talented and deep team that just happened to be built around a different philosophy than some of the other teams we’ve seen. Let’s not get carried away and say that he did it alone. From watching the games, it should be 100% obvious that he didn’t.

Could not agree more Gov

when Grousbeck looks at the champions of the past 25 years. This period probably has the fewest number of different teams winning titles since the Auerbach-Russell collaboration of the 1960’s. But one recent champion doesn’t truly fit the 3-star ‘paradigm’ : the Mia team with Wade and O’Neal. There was no ‘third star’ whose contribution that season was significantly greater than Nowitski’s co-stars this season. Cuban himself said on the night Dal won, there really isn’t one single method to build a championship team.

There have been a sprinkling of championship teams with only one or two principal ‘stars’. GS in ‘75 of course ; Por with Walton and Lucas ; the Sea team with arguably no stars at all — G.Williams, D.Johnson, L.Shelton weren’t stars any more than the principals on the Det team with Billups and Wallace that is named as an exception to the ‘three stars’ paradigm.

Well if nothing else this playoff series proves that a “big 3” without a solid team is not going to do it. Actually it was illustrated by Celtic and Laker championship losses this decade as well. The Heat were the closest to almost having 3 "superstars( more like 2.5) in their prime but with not much of a team.

I think it is somewhat helpful to think of team-building in the terms of a core of three players in terms of style, etc., but the truth is this: you need a top 5 player to win a title.

That’s always been the baseline, the entrypoint into being a contender. And that’s been true of every champion, sans the 1979 Sonics, probably.

He’s a very productive player when you look at Wins Produced and Wins Produced/48 minutes. Here are the top 3 Mavs during the regular season according to this metric:

Chandler: .285 WP48, 12.2 WP

Kidd: .237 WP48, 13.1 WP

Nowitzki: .181 WP48, 9.4 WP

Also, blogger Arturo Galletti has analyzed the contribution of starters and bench players in the regular season and playoffs. His findings:

During the regular season, your starting five account for 82% of your wins. Your next five account for the remaining 18%, and everyone else is statistically meaningless.

In the playoffs, your starting five account for a whopping 94% of your wins. Your sixth man accounts for another 5%, and everyone else is close to meaningless.

So, there seems to be some statistical support for the conventional wisdom in this regard.

Dirk had a “team” around him, talent spread out over the rotation, not just in the 3 big starters + a few good role players. Chandler and Kidd played marvelous D, which is neither glamorous or able to be shown in stats. One thing that I see that is essential in the past 15 or so championship teams was the team’s defense or OPPG:

DAL = 10th
LAL = 10th
LAL = 13th
BOS = 2nd
SAS = 1st
MIA = 13th
SAS = 1st
DET = 2nd
SAS = 3rd
LAL = 10th
LAL = 23rd
LAL = 6th
SAS = 3rd
CHI = 3rd
CHI = 6th

In the last 15 seasons; 14 of the winners were top 13 defenses and 12 were top 10 defenses. The only team that had a less than average league defense was the 2001 Lakers who had a top 3 Offense and the close MVP (Maybe even robbed) Shaq.

The biggest thing I’ve seen in the past champions is a damned penchant for Defense . I would love to have a Big 3, but a Big 2 would be sufficient something along the lines of a PG/C or PG/PF combo, as long as our damn team AND front office gives a rats ass about Defense.

We will NEVER bring the gold to GOLDen State without some damn D.

While there are no iron-clad rules of needing a top-3 or top-2, most people agree that this team are unique champions.

OFFENSE
How many teams have won without a dominant post game? The Bulls, but they had MJ. The Pistons, but they had incredible defenses. All the other teams, stretching back to 1978 or so (where my where my Finals knowledge more or less ends) had a post game. The Mavs overcame that.

DEFENSE
I was always under the impression that, like Barkley, Dirk could not win unless he was put next to a dominant defensive center. How many teams have won a championship without a strong deterring presence inside? Tyson Chandler is good, but I did not think he matched up to history.
Heck, the Mavs don’t even have any noticeable dominant perimeter defenders.

1. OF ‘STARS’
   A lot of people have different definitions of who is a star, and where the cutoff for that label is. Was Kidd or Chandler or Terry a star? Most people wouldn’t think so. Offensively their stats don’t suggest an elite level. Defensively they aren’t considered elite by stats, awards or perception. The team played very well as a unit.

There is probably also some sample biases because
1. a widespread forgetfulness or lack of data of NBA before Bird/Magic

2. a grouping of dynasties. for example, had Jordan gotten unlucky or been injured one series, the Jazz/Knicks/Blazers may have been additional obstacles to these ‘championship requirements’. When only 7 teams have won it all, it’s easy to find similarities between them and rationalize why the won.