Is the NBA superstar winnning formula more perception than reality

[D.o.s.]

In '94, when Jordan was on hiatus, the Pippen lead Bulls won some 55 games, only two games less than the prior season. Had Pippen not gotten that phantom call in game 5, they would have advanced to the finals that year, without Jordan.

Thus, the loaded defensive unit is as much key to a finals run, as the superstar syndrome. The Pistons clearly had that against the Lakers. You need the team defensive prowess to prevent opponents from mounting a serious comeback but then ... the *superstar* seals the deal with superman-like performance, during moments when the others may falter on offensive or defense. Remember that particular block (ala Olajuwon on Stark's game winner in game 6 '94 Finals) or when Jordan had his 55 pts on Barkley's Suns a couple of years earlier. Without those Herculean episodes, chances are, neither teams would have won the finals.

What separated the Pistons from the stereotype is that a different person donned the superman cloak on a different night, while the whole unit focused on exceptional defense. So it was either Billups, the Wallace bros, or Rip playing an all-star contest on a different game.

Another thing re: the Pistons is that the new CBA heavily militates against such teams being formed.

It's much easier to build a contender around one or two stars with a capable supporting cast (particularly one comprised of young players on cheap 1st or 2nd deals) than it is to acquire 3-4 All-Star caliber players.

It's just way too expensive these days to accumulate talent in that way.

You can't be serious, right? The whole point of the CBA is to encourage balanced rosters. Stern wants talent dispersed as much as possible in the league. There's a reason why the teams that are succeeding now are the ones that don't have many stars, but competent players up and down the roster. To say that the CBA somehow discourages that is ludicrous.

It's not ludicrous at all.  The CBA militates against such teams being kept together for very long because players will enjoy success, show that they are worthy of nice contracts, and then have to be let go because the teams can't afford them anymore.

We've already seen that with OKC having to give up Harden, and the Grizzlies having to give away Gay.

We will still see nice, balanced teams like the Pacers that make the most of young talent.  But it will be difficult to ever have a loaded group stay together for more than a few seasons at a time.

Because the luxury tax is so prohibitive now, it is much more financially feasible to build a team around 1 or 2 guys making a lot of money and surround them with bargain deals than it is try to to field a team with 4 or 5 players that take up 90% of the cap.

In that sense, the "parity" aspect of the CBA helps to keep lower level talent moving around the NBA and keeps the top teams from hoarding it.  But it benefits the Miamis of the world at least as much because the best counter to a team with 2-3 superstars would be a team that has 5-6 players who are at or near an All-Star level.  In a league without such penalties, the Nets or Lakers could acquire all the Joe Johnsons, Andre Iguodalas, Andrei Kirilenkos, David Lees, Kevin Garnetts, Paul Millsaps, and Josh Smiths of the world and try to overcome the teams built around 2-3 stars.  But that's not possible anymore, at least not for more than one or two seasons at a time.


The point is that there are still only 10-15 true franchise players in the league at any given time, and the new CBA doesn't really do much to make sure those players get spread out more.  It just forces the next 30-40 best players to distribute more evenly throughout the league.

Actually, I think the case can be made that Harden and Gay were traded for very different reasons--Harden was mailed out a season too early because of OKC's fear of the luxury tax (although they seemed to have no problem raking in playoff revenue for all the years they were under the tax threshold...), while Gay was traded due to the changing vision of Memphis's new front office.

Even without salary cap concerns, I sincerely doubt any front office that relies heavily on John Hollinger is going to keep a guy like Rudy Gay around as a franchise building block.

[rondoallaturca]

In '94, when Jordan was on hiatus, the Pippen lead Bulls won some 55 games, only two games less than the prior season. Had Pippen not gotten that phantom call in game 5, they would have advanced to the finals that year, without Jordan.

Thus, the loaded defensive unit is as much key to a finals run, as the superstar syndrome. The Pistons clearly had that against the Lakers. You need the team defensive prowess to prevent opponents from mounting a serious comeback but then ... the *superstar* seals the deal with superman-like performance, during moments when the others may falter on offensive or defense. Remember that particular block (ala Olajuwon on Stark's game winner in game 6 '94 Finals) or when Jordan had his 55 pts on Barkley's Suns a couple of years earlier. Without those Herculean episodes, chances are, neither teams would have won the finals.

What separated the Pistons from the stereotype is that a different person donned the superman cloak on a different night, while the whole unit focused on exceptional defense. So it was either Billups, the Wallace bros, or Rip playing an all-star contest on a different game.

Another thing re: the Pistons is that the new CBA heavily militates against such teams being formed.

It's much easier to build a contender around one or two stars with a capable supporting cast (particularly one comprised of young players on cheap 1st or 2nd deals) than it is to acquire 3-4 All-Star caliber players.

It's just way too expensive these days to accumulate talent in that way.

You can't be serious, right? The whole point of the CBA is to encourage balanced rosters. Stern wants talent dispersed as much as possible in the league. There's a reason why the teams that are succeeding now are the ones that don't have many stars, but competent players up and down the roster. To say that the CBA somehow discourages that is ludicrous.

It's not ludicrous at all.  The CBA militates against such teams being kept together for very long because players will enjoy success, show that they are worthy of nice contracts, and then have to be let go because the teams can't afford them anymore.

We've already seen that with OKC having to give up Harden, and the Grizzlies having to give away Gay.

We will still see nice, balanced teams like the Pacers that make the most of young talent.  But it will be difficult to ever have a loaded group stay together for more than a few seasons at a time.

Because the luxury tax is so prohibitive now, it is much more financially feasible to build a team around 1 or 2 guys making a lot of money and surround them with bargain deals than it is try to to field a team with 4 or 5 players that take up 90% of the cap.

In that sense, the "parity" aspect of the CBA helps to keep lower level talent moving around the NBA and keeps the top teams from hoarding it.  But it benefits the Miamis of the world at least as much because the best counter to a team with 2-3 superstars would be a team that has 5-6 players who are at or near an All-Star level.  In a league without such penalties, the Nets or Lakers could acquire all the Joe Johnsons, Andre Iguodalas, Andrei Kirilenkos, David Lees, Kevin Garnetts, Paul Millsaps, and Josh Smiths of the world and try to overcome the teams built around 2-3 stars.  But that's not possible anymore, at least not for more than one or two seasons at a time.


The point is that there are still only 10-15 true franchise players in the league at any given time, and the new CBA doesn't really do much to make sure those players get spread out more.  It just forces the next 30-40 best players to distribute more evenly throughout the league.

And in both scenarios you painted, Harden and Gay proceeded to become the best players of their new teams, while the Grizzlies and Thunder were able to remain competitive. It's not to mention that Gay wasn't even traded due to financial reasons. 

There is absolutely no proof behind your opinion that it's more financially feasible to pay a lot of money to one or two guys, and round out the rest of the roster with cheap role players. The Heat make it work because they just happen to have three stars that willingly took paycuts; furthermore, their talents combine so that all the Heat need are sharpshooters, the cheapest role players out there. Beyond all that, they have Lebron. The dude took Ilgauskas and Co. all the way to the Finals in what, his third or fourth year?

And really, outside of the Heat, I can't think of any other team that supports your statement. There isn't any team I can think of that follow your plan and come up with more success than teams that balance out their payroll.

[BballTim]

I've seen too much data and analysis that proves, at least going by the NBA seasons we have to draw from, that the best way to maximize championship potential is with a top 5 player.

http://www.82games.com/dennis.htm

Just read through the article above to refresh a few points on the question. The data only goes up to 2005, but the patterns still hold. A few noteworthy stats:

92% of NBA Champions had a recent All-NBA 1st Team Selection
81% of NBA Champions had a recent All-Defensive 1st Team Selection
92% of NBA Champions had a Player Ranked in the Top 8 in Efficiency the Preceding Season
No NBA team has won a championship without a Top 5 player or Top 5 defender

So yes, I am a big believer in the superstar theory, though there's always the potential for exceptions. And, not surprisingly by design, the best way to acquire one of those with a good chance to keep them around is through the draft.

  When you read that a certain percentage of players have someone that's been named to a certain team within the previous 4 years, consider how many players were named to those teams in those years that *didn't* win the title, or how many teams that might have fit the criteria without winning a title.

[NYDan]

I've seen too much data and analysis that proves, at least going by the NBA seasons we have to draw from, that the best way to maximize championship potential is with a top 5 player.

http://www.82games.com/dennis.htm

Just read through the article above to refresh a few points on the question. The data only goes up to 2005, but the patterns still hold. A few noteworthy stats:

92% of NBA Champions had a recent All-NBA 1st Team Selection
81% of NBA Champions had a recent All-Defensive 1st Team Selection
92% of NBA Champions had a Player Ranked in the Top 8 in Efficiency the Preceding Season
No NBA team has won a championship without a Top 5 player or Top 5 defender

So yes, I am a big believer in the superstar theory, though there's always the potential for exceptions. And, not surprisingly by design, the best way to acquire one of those with a good chance to keep them around is through the draft.

  When you read that a certain percentage of players have someone that's been named to a certain team within the previous 4 years, consider how many players were named to those teams in those years that *didn't* win the title, or how many teams that might have fit the criteria without winning a title.

True, but largely irrelevant because the winners all did. Meeting the proposed criteria won't guarantee a Finals win, but it has been a constant in NBA Champions to date. No top 5 player or top 5 defender, no title.

[BballTim]

I've seen too much data and analysis that proves, at least going by the NBA seasons we have to draw from, that the best way to maximize championship potential is with a top 5 player.

http://www.82games.com/dennis.htm

Just read through the article above to refresh a few points on the question. The data only goes up to 2005, but the patterns still hold. A few noteworthy stats:

92% of NBA Champions had a recent All-NBA 1st Team Selection
81% of NBA Champions had a recent All-Defensive 1st Team Selection
92% of NBA Champions had a Player Ranked in the Top 8 in Efficiency the Preceding Season
No NBA team has won a championship without a Top 5 player or Top 5 defender

So yes, I am a big believer in the superstar theory, though there's always the potential for exceptions. And, not surprisingly by design, the best way to acquire one of those with a good chance to keep them around is through the draft.

  When you read that a certain percentage of players have someone that's been named to a certain team within the previous 4 years, consider how many players were named to those teams in those years that *didn't* win the title, or how many teams that might have fit the criteria without winning a title.

True, but largely irrelevant because the winners all did. Meeting the proposed criteria won't guarantee a Finals win, but it has been a constant in NBA Champions to date. No top 5 player or top 5 defender, no title.

  But he's not telling you what you need to win a title, he's telling you what title teams have in common, and he fiddled around with his data windows to look for *any* relationship whether it affects your ability to win or not.

  Getting named to an all-whatever team the year they win or maybe the year before is probably relevant, being last named to such a team 4 years before you win a title isn't. But he widened his window from that year or the year before to 4 years back because so many teams fit the criteria and he can inflate the importance of his claim by saying "92% did X in the last 4 years" when the (for example) 50% of the players did it that year or the previous year. It's just a gimmick. It's apparently effective, but OTOH he could claim that 75% of the title teams had left handed small forwards and people here would stay up late figuring out how to trade for such a player.

[Celtics18]

I've seen too much data and analysis that proves, at least going by the NBA seasons we have to draw from, that the best way to maximize championship potential is with a top 5 player.

http://www.82games.com/dennis.htm

Just read through the article above to refresh a few points on the question. The data only goes up to 2005, but the patterns still hold. A few noteworthy stats:

92% of NBA Champions had a recent All-NBA 1st Team Selection
81% of NBA Champions had a recent All-Defensive 1st Team Selection
92% of NBA Champions had a Player Ranked in the Top 8 in Efficiency the Preceding Season
No NBA team has won a championship without a Top 5 player or Top 5 defender

So yes, I am a big believer in the superstar theory, though there's always the potential for exceptions. And, not surprisingly by design, the best way to acquire one of those with a good chance to keep them around is through the draft.

2012-13 - Miami Heat.  LeBron James = #1 RS, #2 PS
2011-12 - Miami Heat.  LeBron James = #1 RS, #1 PS
2010-11 - Mavericks.  Dirk Nowitzki = #10 RS, #5 PS
2009-10 - Lakers.  Pau Gasol = #5 RS, #5 PS (Kobe #6 PS)
2008-09 - Lakers. Pau Gasol = #7 RS (Kobe #10 RS), #7 PS (Kobe #4 PS)
2007-08 - Celtics.  Kevin Garnett = #9 RS, #7 PS
2006-07 - Spurs.  Tim Duncan = #9 RS, #5 PS
2005-06 - Heat.  Dwayne Wade = #7 RS, #6 PS
2004-05 - Spurs.  Tim Duncan = #6 RS, #6 PS
2003-04 - Pistons.  Ben Wallace = #22 RS, #8 PS
2002-03 - Spurs.  Tim Duncan = #3 RS, #2 PS
2001-02 - Lakers.  Shaq = #3 RS (Kobe #10), Shaq = #4 PS (Kobe #4)
2000-01 - Lakers.  Shaq = #1 RS (Kobe #18),  Shaq = #1 PS (Kobe #5)
1999-00 - Lakers.  Shaq = #1 RS (Kobe #15),  Shaq = #1 PS (Kobe #20)
1998-99 - Spurs.  Duncan = #4 RS, #2 PS
1997-98 - Bulls.  Jordan = #4 RS (Pippen #25), #3 PS (Pippen #14) 

The above stats are borrowed from a post by LarBrd33.  He was using NBA.Com's efficiency ratings for his rankings.

I'm not sure that the bolded parts of your above statement are true.  It appears that top ten is the new top five. 

[LooseCannon]

Actually, I think the case can be made that Harden and Gay were traded for very different reasons--Harden was mailed out a season too early because of OKC's fear of the luxury tax (although they seemed to have no problem raking in playoff revenue for all the years they were under the tax threshold...), while Gay was traded due to the changing vision of Memphis's new front office.

Harden was traded at the right time to maximize value in return.  He was traded just before the last day for signing a player on a rookie-scale contract to an extension, so the team receiving him would know they had him long-term instead of uncertainty that he might end up becoming an expensive rental.

[BballTim]

I've seen too much data and analysis that proves, at least going by the NBA seasons we have to draw from, that the best way to maximize championship potential is with a top 5 player.

http://www.82games.com/dennis.htm

Just read through the article above to refresh a few points on the question. The data only goes up to 2005, but the patterns still hold. A few noteworthy stats:

92% of NBA Champions had a recent All-NBA 1st Team Selection
81% of NBA Champions had a recent All-Defensive 1st Team Selection
92% of NBA Champions had a Player Ranked in the Top 8 in Efficiency the Preceding Season
No NBA team has won a championship without a Top 5 player or Top 5 defender

So yes, I am a big believer in the superstar theory, though there's always the potential for exceptions. And, not surprisingly by design, the best way to acquire one of those with a good chance to keep them around is through the draft.

2012-13 - Miami Heat.  LeBron James = #1 RS, #2 PS
2011-12 - Miami Heat.  LeBron James = #1 RS, #1 PS
2010-11 - Mavericks.  Dirk Nowitzki = #10 RS, #5 PS
2009-10 - Lakers.  Pau Gasol = #5 RS, #5 PS (Kobe #6 PS)
2008-09 - Lakers. Pau Gasol = #7 RS (Kobe #10 RS), #7 PS (Kobe #4 PS)
2007-08 - Celtics.  Kevin Garnett = #9 RS, #7 PS
2006-07 - Spurs.  Tim Duncan = #9 RS, #5 PS
2005-06 - Heat.  Dwayne Wade = #7 RS, #6 PS
2004-05 - Spurs.  Tim Duncan = #6 RS, #6 PS
2003-04 - Pistons.  Ben Wallace = #22 RS, #8 PS
2002-03 - Spurs.  Tim Duncan = #3 RS, #2 PS
2001-02 - Lakers.  Shaq = #3 RS (Kobe #10), Shaq = #4 PS (Kobe #4)
2000-01 - Lakers.  Shaq = #1 RS (Kobe #18),  Shaq = #1 PS (Kobe #5)
1999-00 - Lakers.  Shaq = #1 RS (Kobe #15),  Shaq = #1 PS (Kobe #20)
1998-99 - Spurs.  Duncan = #4 RS, #2 PS
1997-98 - Bulls.  Jordan = #4 RS (Pippen #25), #3 PS (Pippen #14) 

The above stats are borrowed from a post by LarBrd33.  He was using NBA.Com's efficiency ratings for his rankings.

I'm not sure that the bolded parts of your above statement are true.  It appears that top ten is the new top five.

  That's because, as I was saying, top 5 means "was top 5 at some point in the last 4 years", not "currently top 5". The numbers don't necessarily mean exactly what people think they do, but those people act like it's the holy grail.

[LatterDayCelticsfan]

Without wanting to split hairs, what I`m getting from those stats is that pretty much every NBA champion over the past 20 years inevitably had a top 5 perormer, and or a lottery pick to thank for it. What I don`t see is that having a top 5 performer/pick inevitably leading to a title