There is nothing harder in sports than putting together a team that can compete for the championship. Everyone thinks they can build a championship caliber team, but few Presidents and GM’s have success. With the NBA season tipping off in just one week, FromCourtside is going to explain what they believe is the main ingredient necessary to be crowned an NBA champion.
Analysts consistently talk about the need for team chemistry, solid defense, great coaching, a deep bench etc. Obviously these are all necessary components to success, but having these ingredients will not be enough to win the title at the end of the season.
To break it down, let’s take a look at the teams that have won the NBA championship in the past 20 years: Bulls, Rockets, Lakers, Heat, Spurs and Pistons. That’s only 6 teams in 20 years.
What separates these 6 teams from the rest?
It’s pretty simple- The best player in the NBA was on each one of those teams. During the Bulls’ reign as champions, the outstanding variable was obviously #23. When Michael Jordan sat out for a year and a half, Hakeem Olajuwon took the thrown as the best player in the NBA. Hence, the Rockets took back-to-back titles. The Lakers were the champions in the late 80’s when they were led by Magic Johnson. Then Shaq and Kobe (take your pick) led the Lakers from 1999-2002. Shaq was sent to Miami, but he wasn’t the reason the Heat took the title. At that time D. Wade was the man. The Spurs have won 4 titles in the last 10 years. Tim Duncan might not be the most exciting player, but you can’t take away the fact that he’s the most efficient. The guy does it all. Lastly, the Pistons have had separate championship teams with Isiah Thomas leading the way in 1988-1989 and 1989-1990.
The one exception to this list was the 2003-2004 Detroit Pistons. There is no question the Lakers had the best players in the NBA during that season. So what went wrong with my theory? Without being too specific, let’s just say that if you have two superstars with super size egos that can’t co-exist on a court, and major turmoil off the court, the challenge can be insurmountable.
The reality here is that there are many components that need to take place in order to become a championship team. Defense, teamwork, quality coaching, production off the bench, all play a vital role in the quest to win it all.
The one ingredient that will distinguish one team from the rest is the team with the best player in the NBA. If he’s truly the best, he will make sure that everyone of those other elements are in place. Then that will be the team that will win the title.
Think about it.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
To Win in the NBA
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Courtside Guy,
I think your analysis is accurate to an extent. You forgot to mention that those teams, for the most part, need other components. Every Batman needs:
1) a Robin (who can throw on the cape ever so often), and
2) Role Players who know where they stand on the food chain
As far as the missing components
-It's too late to apologize
It appears that JB touched on the points you are alluding too. In the final paragraph which states that if he's truly the best, he'll make sure those other elements are in place.
What that means to me:
1) Batman will create his Robin. He'll obviously need something to work with, but that's what makes him the best player in the NBA.
2) Role players will emerge. That's what the best player in the NBA is able to do. Make average players look great.
Great read.
-The Wax Man
Of the last 20 championship teams, only 8 of them have had the league MVP on their team...with half of those being Jordan with the Bulls. The MVP award is given to the player that most people consider to be the "best player in the league" for that given year. Although I would agree that this award is somewhat subjective because it is sportswriters and other media people who vote for it...for the most part I think they get it right.
I understand the point you are making that most (if not all) championship teams have a great player on their team...but I think it is a very bold, and ignorant thing to say that these players were all the "best in the NBA" that year. The last 4 MVP awards have been given to Garnett, Nash twice, and most recently Nowitzki, none of these players’ teams have gone on to win the championship that year. Tim Duncan is a GREAT player, but was he the best player in the league last year? No. He was behind the likes of Dirk, Nash, Lebron and Kobe for MVP voting..….and it was Tony Parker who won the NBA Finals MVP award, not Duncan.
And lets not kid ourselves here…Isaiah Thomas was NEVER the best player in the league, especially in the years Detroit won the championships when there were a couple guys named Magic and MJ dominating the league.
Waxman,
Batman doesn't create his Robin. Yes, great players make other players around them better in many aspects. However, Pippen, Shaq, and Kobe; all of which were Robins at one point were not creations of the greats but rather self standing all-stars which facillitated greats to win championships.
And my man Colin,
With all due respect, basing the best player in the league on who won the MVP may be the most flawed argument of all time. Even you acknowledge the subjectiveness of the MVP selection. But just to give you an example of how weak your argument is, the 1997 MVP of the league was Karl Malone. That was the same year MJ destroyed the Jazz in the finals. All the MVP award means is that you played well and had a solid record in the REGULAR SEASON. Greatness shows its face in the Playoffs my man. We are talking about getting that ring not that plaque.
the miami heat championship did not happen.....
http://my.nba.com/forum.jspa?forumID=300012410
Ticket,
I agree that the MVP voting system has its flaws..and in hindsight Dirk didnt deserve the MVP last year. But Tim Duncan didnt deserve it either, nor did Parker or Ginobili or anyone else on the Spurs. Most people would agree the best player on the planet at the moment is probably Kobe Bryant.
All I am trying to point out is that the article was very opinionative because most NBA championship teams have GREAT players (i.e. Tim Duncan) but there is a difference between calling someone a great player and calling someone "the best in the NBA" that year. We could probably sit here all day and argue who was the best player in any given year, hence why I used the MVP award argument becuase that is the only thing that seperates one persons opinion from a majority's opinion.
Long story short, the article is flawed in my opinion because although some championship teams in the last 20 years have had the best player in the NBA on their team (i.e. MJ with Bulls) many have not, simply great players and good team chemistry etc.
Post a Comment