PDA

View Full Version : What separates elite NBA teams from the rest? It's simple



AlexStr
03-30-2011, 01:35 PM
I think this is the cut and dry truth of the NBA, and anything else is just window dressing:



Why have these franchises continued to mire in mediocrity while the Lakers, Spurs, Mavericks, and others enjoy success year after year? The answer is: stars. Your franchise must have at least one bona-fide, proven, absolute stud to make a serious ripple in the competitive pond of professional basketball.

Let me be clear on what I mean by stud: I'm not talking about borderline All-Stars like Monta Ellis, Andre Iguodala, Al Jefferson, Kevin Martin, or Danny Granger. I'm talking unmistakably superior, franchise players; the Dirks, Kobes, Pauls, LeBrons, and Derrick Roses of the world.

The NBA, more than any of the other major sports, is a game of STARS. Since there are only 5 players on the court at one time, one player can have a far greater impact on his team's fate than say, a football player or a baseball player. There is no better example of this than the Cleveland Cavaliers: in 2009, they were the owners of a league-best 61-21 regular season record and were considered contenders for the NBA title. Take one player off of their team (Mr. LeBron James) look how the tables turn: they are currently 13-55, and are fighting to stay out of the top-20 worst teams in NBA history.


http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/7881384/what_separates_elite_nba_teams_from.html?cat=14

Honestly...don't get me wrong. I love getting into the nuts and bolts of my team and armchair scouting college players and all that. But unless your team:

1) Gets lucky and drafts a superstar
2) Trades for a superstar
3) Signs a superstar (if your name isn't Lakers, Heat, Knicks, or Bulls...you can forget about this option)

you're pretty much doomed to be a 6th seed at best or not even in the playoffs year after year. There are a few exceptions like the Hawks and the Pistons of a few years back (although they did have 4 All-Stars if I'm not mistaken), but I honestly think that solid players just don't cut it anymore.

Take the Warriors: Monta is a good scorer, Steph is a good passer, Lee was an all-star last year, Dorrell is having a breakout year. Seems like an OK team, except that they're like, 12th in the West and have no real prospects of getting that much better.

Who feels me

210Don
03-30-2011, 01:37 PM
pretty much...

Phenomenonsense
03-30-2011, 01:40 PM
I think this is the cut and dry truth of the NBA, and anything else is just window dressing:



http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/7881384/what_separates_elite_nba_teams_from.html?cat=14

Honestly...don't get me wrong. I love getting into the nuts and bolts of my team and armchair scouting college players and all that. But unless your team:

1) Gets lucky and drafts a superstar
2) Trades for a superstar
3) Signs a superstar (if your name isn't Lakers, Heat, Knicks, or Bulls...you can forget about this option)

you're pretty much doomed to be a 6th seed at best or not even in the playoffs year after year. There are a few exceptions like the Hawks and the Pistons of a few years back (although they did have 4 All-Stars if I'm not mistaken), but I honestly think that solid players just don't cut it anymore.

Take the Warriors: Monta is a good scorer, Steph is a good passer, Lee was an all-star last year, Dorrell is having a breakout year. Seems like an OK team, except that they're like, 12th in the West and have no real prospects of getting that much better.

Who feels me

Yea, the Pistons had four all-stars, but that wouldn't have been the case had they not all been on the same time. Maybe Wallace would've been an Allstar, but it was the teamwork that made them great. Billups would've never been considered a great PG because of his 6 APG stat, and I doubt most of them would've been on the Allstar team had they not won the Finals. People forget and think that the Pistons were all great individual players for some reason. They all bought into defense and played very well together.

That being said, one must have an amazing GM in order to pull off pulling a team like that together, a good coach to get them to buy into defense, and a little luck. Superstars are the only surefire way to get in to the Top 5 teams.

haggis
03-30-2011, 01:42 PM
Holy ****!

This guy figured it out.

jmcelligott92
03-30-2011, 01:43 PM
The Cavs didnt just lose LeBron, he was a huge loss for the team, but with the roster they had last year healthy without LeBron could have been atleast decent this year challenging for the 8th seed

Missing56&33
03-30-2011, 01:44 PM
IMO its coaching. You can have a bunch of stars on the team and if you don't have the right coach in place to make it work, that team can be beat and be unsuccessful. This is what you will see in Miami if they don't replace Spoelstra with Pat Riley or a quality HC.

masalex1205
03-30-2011, 01:49 PM
wow this is groundbreaking

-Kobe24-TJ19-
03-30-2011, 02:10 PM
Nice thread, and I agree with OP.

WSU Tony
03-30-2011, 02:14 PM
This is why the Knicks being so bad for so long is just laughable. They literally had everything going for them and they still sucked.

Now, they make a trade, and they STILL suck. lol. Next season will be better but I'll enjoy this season while it lasts.

sargon21
03-30-2011, 02:22 PM
defense and ONE elite closer

Baller1
03-30-2011, 02:28 PM
Yeah, but it's about surrounding that star(s) with not just serviceable players, but players dedicated to winning and willing to take on the role that a particular team needs. The Cavaliers never got Lebron a legitimate 2nd option. Mo Williams is a good player, Antawn Jamison is a good player, Varejao is a good player; but none are seen as a threat to really take pressure off of Lebron.

I do agree that a star is needed, and by star, I mean a bonafide, big name player who can take over a game when needed. Look at the teams who have a shot at a title this season:
LA
Dallas
Chicago
Boston
OKC
SA
Miami
Orlando

They all have at least 1 star, and some having 2 (or even "2 1/2" ;)). A star is needed, but the team that surrounds that star the best and also is coached well is going to succeed. Which is why intangibles take most of those 8 teams out of contention in all reality...

Orlando (Lack of help for Dwight)
OKC (bad coaching)
Dallas (can't get it together in the playoffs)

Then to a lesser degree:
Chicago and Miami (we have yet to see these newly constructed teams in the playoffs, so they play the wildcard role this season).

----

The point... The original poster is right, a star is needed to succeed. Philly and Denver are nice stories right now, but does anyone really believe they're going to win a championship while being led by Iguadola and Gallinari? No. Atlanta and Portland? Great players, great coaching (McMillan), but lack of a TRUE superstar (sorry JJ and Aldridge) is going to hurt them, so I don't see them winning a championship. Same with Memphis, same with New Orleans (lack of coaching and talent IMO).

Superstars run the league, and that's how it will always be.

thekmp211
03-30-2011, 02:38 PM
the key is "the secret"

Supa
03-30-2011, 02:38 PM
I think this is the cut and dry truth of the NBA, and anything else is just window dressing:



http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/7881384/what_separates_elite_nba_teams_from.html?cat=14

Honestly...don't get me wrong. I love getting into the nuts and bolts of my team and armchair scouting college players and all that. But unless your team:

1) Gets lucky and drafts a superstar
2) Trades for a superstar
3) Signs a superstar (if your name isn't Lakers, Heat, Knicks, or Bulls...you can forget about this option)


Unless? Is there any other way to get great players (or any player) besides drafting, trading or free agency? :confused:

So elite teams have great players ... yes, I think so .....

---

Niro
03-30-2011, 02:46 PM
defense and ONE elite closer

this

usually the closer is also a superstar (ex kobe-lakers, lebron & wade-heat, pierce-celtics (also he probly isnt a superstar right now but was some years back)

Klivlend
03-30-2011, 02:49 PM
wow, great teams have great players...totally thread worthy.

gsgs49
03-30-2011, 02:53 PM
To win a championship you should have at least one superstar than you should build around him getting players who complement the superstar,history shows that all championship teams have at least a superstar except the 04 pistons maybe and because the leaugue is too stacked today you need also a legit second option who can lead the team if the superstar has a bad night also history shows all championship teams in the last 30 years had at least two top 20 players with some exceptions maybe(94 rockets and 03 spurs) and of course you should have a good coach and a good second unit.To do that you need a good GM to draft or sign the right players like the spurs or heat GM and you need an antisterling owner who is ready to put his money on the table like the mavs and the nets owner and finally you need some luck.

AlexStr
03-30-2011, 02:55 PM
damn I'm (deservedly) getting hosed here

I guess I came to the realization a bit later than everyone.

But it's like..who cares how the young pieces on my team develop, or what MLE players we can sign, or even who the coach/owners are?

By definition, all of this debate that happens in forums is useless because at the end of the day, if you can get a Paul/Bron/Howard on your team, you can have Don Sterling as your owner and Mike Montgomery as your coach..you will be good

Thats all I was trying to say :(

king4day
03-30-2011, 02:56 PM
This is why the Knicks being so bad for so long is just laughable. They literally had everything going for them and they still sucked.

Now, they make a trade, and they STILL suck. lol. Next season will be better but I'll enjoy this season while it lasts.

How is it laughable? They had no stars leading up to this point, proving the OP correctly. Now they have 2 elite players but nearly their whole team changed in the trade. So they struggle.

Frantico
03-30-2011, 03:06 PM
This is not necessarily the case. Detroit had all stars but no real star. Just a bunch of really good players that played as a team and played D.

mjokc
03-30-2011, 04:16 PM
Lol @ Derrick rose being on the same level as Kobe, Lebron, Wade, Dwight, KD, CP3 etc. Derrick is on the next tier down with westbrook, DWill, Dirk, Ellis, Curry etc.

Hellcrooner
03-30-2011, 04:37 PM
is not stars.


is STAR CALLS from refs.


btw i wonder how does this dude explain 04 pistons.

AlexStr
03-30-2011, 04:51 PM
is not stars.


is STAR CALLS from refs.


btw i wonder how does this dude explain 04 pistons.

Theres always gonna be outliers.

Consider that since 1984 (27 years), only 7 teams have won the title. Lakers, Spurs, Bulls, Pistons, Heat, Celtics, Rockets.

Lakers = Kobe, Shaq
Spurs = Duncan
Bulls = Jordan
Heat = Wade and Shaq
Celtics = Garnett, Allen, Pierce, Rondo
Rockets = Hakeem

Pistons = ???

The only of these teams that didn't have a top-10 NBA player is the Pistons. OK, maybe the Celtics, but they had three hall of famers. Different story.

Other than that, the only players who have won titles in the last 27 years are Kobe, Shaq, Duncan, Jordan, Wade, and Hakeem.

In other words, if you didn't have 1 or more of these guys on your time, better luck next year.

sep11ie
03-30-2011, 05:05 PM
Theres always gonna be outliers.

Consider that since 1984 (27 years), only 7 teams have won the title. Lakers, Spurs, Bulls, Pistons, Heat, Celtics, Rockets.

Lakers = Kobe, Shaq
Spurs = Duncan
Bulls = Jordan
Heat = Wade and Shaq
Celtics = Garnett, Allen, Pierce, Rondo
Rockets = Hakeem

Pistons = ???

The only of these teams that didn't have a top-10 NBA player is the Pistons. OK, maybe the Celtics, but they had three hall of famers. Different story.

Other than that, the only players who have won titles in the last 27 years are Kobe, Shaq, Duncan, Jordan, Wade, and Hakeem.

In other words, if you didn't have 1 or more of these guys on your time, better luck next year.


How are you gonna include Ray Allen and Rondo and leave out Clyde Drexler and Scottie Pippen

xxcubs22xx
03-30-2011, 05:15 PM
It's the Win Column, and primarily defense.

RaiderLakersA's
03-30-2011, 05:17 PM
Consider that since 1984 (27 years), only 7 teams have won the title. Lakers, Spurs, Bulls, Pistons, Heat, Celtics, Rockets.

Lakers = Kobe, Shaq
Spurs = Duncan
Bulls = Jordan
Heat = Wade and Shaq
Celtics = Garnett, Allen, Pierce, Rondo
Rockets = Hakeem
Pistons = ???



Off topic, it would be easy to draw up a "6 degrees of separation" graphic for some of those championship teams. Lots of common elements. The only teams that can't be connected so easily are the Pistons and Celtics.

sep11ie
03-30-2011, 05:45 PM
Off topic, it would be easy to draw up a "6 degrees of separation" graphic for some of those championship teams. Lots of common elements. The only teams that can't be connected so easily are the Pistons and Celtics.

Sheed

DubiousCustomer
03-30-2011, 05:58 PM
OP doesn't tell the whole story, and is partially wrong because of it. A star is a necessary but not sufficient condition of contending. Without defining what a star is this is somewhat pointless but: Blake Griffin is a star, the Clippers are bad. New York has two stars, they are bad. The Wolves, Suns, and Nets all have players considered stars. Maybe NJ will be better next season, but who is taking that bet?

edit: not the bucks, the wolves.

Crackadalic
03-30-2011, 06:19 PM
A closer wing man. A very good Big man and a very good defensive pg. Surround that with pieces that fit those three together, play with a coach that preach defense and have everyone play TEAM basketball you pretty much have a high chance to win a championship

AlexStr
03-30-2011, 06:38 PM
OP doesn't tell the whole story, and is partially wrong because of it. A star is a necessary but not sufficient condition of contending. Without defining what a star is this is somewhat pointless but: Blake Griffin is a star, the Clippers are bad. New York has two stars, they are bad. The Wolves, Suns, and Nets all have players considered stars. Maybe NJ will be better next season, but who is taking that bet?

edit: not the bucks, the wolves.

I think our definition of "star" differs.

You can put LeBron on any team and he will improve your wins by double digits, guaranteed.

Same with Dwight, D-Wade, Kobe, Durant, Dirk, CP3, Deron, Rose.


Blake Griffin is like Kevin Love and Al Jefferson...he puts up gaudy-*** numbers, but he's not going to have a huge impact in the WL column. A prime Duncan, for example, would turn almost any team he was on into a contender because he was just that good. I'm talking about those kinds of stars, not Russell Westbrook, Kevin Love, or Monta Ellis

tdunk21
03-30-2011, 08:37 PM
imo....its front office personel who make it happen

Car Ramrod
03-30-2011, 08:55 PM
The '04 Pistons had an unreal defense as a team. Just having a superstar doesn't mean you'll win. The only teams that have won had their superstars bury their ego to benefit the team. Also they need a rebounder to give the stars more touches. The Pistons had Wallace and Prince along with Hamilton. Kobe and Shaq couldn't score because they didn't have the ball and Billups was the perfect guy to run the offense. They were better and smarter than the Lakers and it showed.

How many more touches did Jordan get because Rodman was getting him the ball?
Same in LA with Bynum, when Perkins was in Boston, Boozer in Chicago etc,. The more touches a star gets the more chances to score. Ask Melo is he misses Anderson and Nene getting him the ball.....

DubiousCustomer
03-30-2011, 11:05 PM
A prime Duncan, for example, would turn almost any team he was on into a contender because he was just that good. I'm talking about those kinds of stars, not Russell Westbrook, Kevin Love, or Monta Ellis

Yeah, but if anyone who is on your list of nonstars starts winning then your definition isn't very good.

madmoochie
03-31-2011, 12:04 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XujcvS6q6_Y

CowboysKB24
03-31-2011, 12:13 AM
Okay, so get the talent and get the right coach to coach the talent. This is not breaking new information.