What it takes to win a title

[Moranis]

So I know some on here have heard my top 5 player in the league theory, but I have sort or reevaluated and it really is more top 30 players all time (and as the years continue, it will expand to top 35, then top 40, etc.).

So to start with, you need the top 30 players in history. In 2016, ESPN put out a list.  The top 25 in order were: MJ, Kareem, Lebron, Magic, Wilt, Bird, Russell, Duncan, Shaq, Hakeem, Oscar, Kobe, West, Dr. J, Moses, Mailman, Dirk, Barkley, Stockton, Robinson, KG, Durant, Curry, Baylor, Pippen.  While we can all debate the order, I think those 25 would pretty clearly be in the top 30 players all-time.  At that time ESPN's 26-30 were Isiah, Wade, Hondo, CP3, Nash.  Those are a bit more debatable, but since 2016, I think the only 2 players you could now include would be Giannis and Jokic.  For simplicity, I will bump Paul and Nash and add Giannis and Jokic.  So that is the top 30 players in NBA history.

Starting with Bill's rookie season (since he is the oldest player on that list).  The only champions that do not have one of those players are the following teams.

1958 - St. Louis Hawks (led by Bob Pettit who was 34th on ESPN's list, has 2 MVP's and was 1st team all NBA 10 straight years)
1970 - Knicks (with 4 HOFers in their prime - Frazier (38th), Reed (48th), DeBusscherre (85th), Bradley) 
1973 - Knicks (same 4 HOFers plus Earl the Pearl Monroe (60th) and Jerry Lucas (79th))
1975 - Warriors (Rick Barry (37th))
1977 - Blazers (Bill Walton (42nd))
1978 - Bullets (Hayes (40th), Unseld (53rd), Dandridge)
1979 - Sonics (DJ (84th), Sikma)
2004 - Pistons (Billups 87th, B. Wallace plus Rip, R. Wallace, Okur, Prince)
2019 - Raptors (M. Gasol (95th), Kawhi (he was 33rd in their top 76 list in 2020), plus Siakam, VanVleet, Lowry, Powell, Ibaka)
2024 - Celtics (Tatum, Brown, Holiday, KP, Horford with PP)
2025 - Thunder (SGA well on his way to cracking this sort of list)

So outside of the topsy turvy 70's, when Kareem and Hondo were basically the only top 30 players all time, there haven't exactly been a lot of champions that don't have a top 30 player all time.  So what do those teams have in common?  Other than the Thunder (who are both young and likely to fall off this list as SGA plays more), the other 3 to win a title since the 70's all had incredibly deep teams with multiple HOFers at the top of the lineup (I'm projecting some here).  The Pistons had (at the time), 2 time DPOY Ben, who had 3 top 10 MVP finishes and rising star Chauncy along with cagey vets like Rasheed, Rip, Hunter, Corliss Williamson, and Elden Campbell plus young talented players like Prince and Okur.  The epitome of a deep well coach team, but with immense talent at the top of the roster (especially defensively).

Then you had the 2019 Raptors led by Kawhi, who is a borderline top 30 player, and who already had a Finals MVP, 2 DPOY, and 2 top 3 MVP finishes, plus Gasol who was also a former DPOY, experienced vets like Lowry, Danny Green, and Ibaka, a rising star in Siakam, and other young talented players like VanVleet and Norm Powell. 

And of course our Celtics, with Tatum at the top who was arguably a top 5 player in the sport at the time.  Plus consistent all-star Brown, former champion and future HOFer Holiday, along with White, Porzingis, Horford, and some young talent on the bench (like future 6MOY PP). 

So the reality is depending on what you think of Kawhi and assuming SGA actually gets to that level, since Larry and Magic entered the league there have been just 2 champions that haven't had at least 1 arguable top 30 player all time.  The 04 Pistons and the 24 Celtics (even if you thought Tatum could reach that level, I'm assuming Tatum's injury eliminates him from any shot at reaching it at this point).

You quite simply need those players to win, especially if you want to win more than 1.  If you don't have those type of players, you aren't going to win championships except in very rare situations where you go 5 or 6 deep with multiple HOFers.  So you can build a championship team without a mega franchise player at the top, but you are unlikely to build a multiple title type team without that player.  And frankly many of the champions have more than 1 top 30 player or a top 30 player and multiple top 100 players.  Winning is hard, but you need the mega players to really do it consistently and for a long time.  If you don't have one of those, you need to keep building to get one.

I bring this up because Boston doesn't have a mega player.  They won by having a very deep team with Tatum at his apex.  Given the salary constraints, it will be very difficult for Boston to get back to winning championships, because it will be very difficult to build the depth that the team needs to really compete without the mega star.

[mobilija]

Funny?.now that (a non-injured) Tatum is considered a top 5 player you?ve changed ur theory to top 30 all time.

And you casually throw out 5 teams that don?t fit ur narrative bc there weren?t enough all timers. Seems like if ur theory were accurate Hondo and Kareem should have dominated that era. And might as well throw out two other teams because?well, maybe time will tell (but the same logic doesn?t apply to Tatum).

We all get that the best players tend to win games, but you?ve created a theory and twisted it to fit ur narrative of the right way to build a team (while trolling Celtics fans at the same time). We?ve been down this road with you before, and two years ago, you were proven wrong. Let the non-bending arguments filled with ?ifs? and ?buts? commence.

[Vermont Green]

My main disagreement is related to Tatum. I think he was that good in 2024 and is probably still that good. 

[Moranis]

My main disagreement is related to Tatum. I think he was that good in 2024 and is probably still that good.

a top 5 player in any given season  is not the same as a top 30 player all time.  I adjusted the theory because there is less disagreement on top 30 all time than a top 5 player on any given season.  We've had those discussions over someone like Dirk in 2010.  Was he top 5, was he not?  Don't need to do that since he is top 30 all time.  The theory also works better as there are less outlier seasons. Meaning it is more of a rule.

Tatum was a top 5 player the last couple seasons, but he clearly is not a top 30 player all time.  Not even arguably at this point.  Since 1980 there are only 4 title winning teams that don't have a clear top 30 player, one of those has a guy close to top 30 (Kawhi) and another is the defending champ led by the reigning mvp just entering his prime who if he stays healthy will almost certainly be that class of player. 

Now sure, if Tatum comes back at 100% and the C's win more titles, then I think Tatum, if he doesn't hit that level will be in the arguable range like Kawhi.  Thus further solidifying the rule not taking away from it.  I don't see that as all that likely, but it certainly is possible. 

[Roy H.]

Does it matter if the top-30 All-Time player is playing like a top-30 all-time player in his title season?

For instance, the KG we had in 2008 was incredible and a worthy DPOY.  But, he was past his prime; he wasn't playing at a top-30 all-time level.  I think of the 2008 team as a great collection of talent that was dominant defensively, more similar to the 2004 Pistons than the 2003 Lakers (for instance).

But, I don't think your theory is all that controversial.  Most teams that win titles have a dominant superstar along with at least one other all-star level player.  Those that don't tend to be deep with high-end, team-oriented talent.

[Moranis]

Does it matter if the top-30 All-Time player is playing like a top-30 all-time player in his title season?

For instance, the KG we had in 2008 was incredible and a worthy DPOY.  But, he was past his prime; he wasn't playing at a top-30 all-time level.  I think of the 2008 team as a great collection of talent that was dominant defensively, more similar to the 2004 Pistons than the 2003 Lakers (for instance).

But, I don't think your theory is all that controversial.  Most teams that win titles have a dominant superstar along with at least one other all-star level player.  Those that don't tend to be deep with high-end, team-oriented talent.

I didn't analyze that but the one real test would be the 2014 Spurs as TD was clearly past his prime and Kawhi hadn't come close to his peak yet.  KG was clearly still great in 2008.  DPOY, 3rd in MVP, 1st Team All League and All Defense.  His numbers were down mostly because his touches were reduced playing with PP, Ray, Perk, Rajon.

That said I'm not sure it matters a ton as those type of players seemingly find ways to get it done.  I mean it isnt like Curry was still peak in 22, but in the big moments he rose to the occasion.  That is what those players do.  I don't know if you could count it if the guy was a bench player playing limited minutes.  That is different, but that also hasn't happened (at least one a team where he is the only one).

[Vermont Green]

There were narratives put out there that included "Tatum isn't good enough to win a title", and "Tatum and Brown can't play together", and perhaps the most common one, "Mazzulla is not a good enough coach to win a title".

So now the argument seems to be that a core of Tatum, Brown, and White is not good enough to win a title so there is no point in trying to go forward with this as the core.  Isn't this the real argument here?  Tatum isn't top 30 all time, and now with the injury, never will be, and the remaining core isn't good enough or complimentary enough to have a title team that is constructed without a top 30 all time player.

Everyone agrees that you need a top player to win a title, with very few exceptions.  And you need other good players around that top player.  Again, no one will argue that either.  Some may argue whether or not you need a top coach to win a title.  That one to me is at least debatable.

I do not think that now is the time to blow up this team by trading Brown for draft picks.  If you trade Brown for draft picks, you may as well trade Tatum and White too as it will be several years at best before those rookies are good enough to make much difference. I want to see Tatum, Brown, and White, along with the best possible supporting cast, in 2026-27.  If you can trade Brown for Giannis or some other top player, I am OK with that.  Otherwise let's go with what we got.