That's the point I was getting at, because the large majority of players who hit that line, even the majority of players that hit it (IIRC) 3 or more times are never top players on title teams.
Sure. That's definitely a fair point.
This is similar to when people point out that the vast majority of teams who pick in the top 5 don't end up winning a title with that player. It's a fair point, but it doesn't invalidate the original observation about the value of a top 5 pick.
A 10 Win Shares player appears to be a necessary condition for winning a title. That's far from saying that having a player like that is a sufficient condition. So take it for what it's worth, which maybe isn't much. I just thought it was interesting.
Clearly I felt it was interesting enough to join into the conversation. I'm personally more interested in "what top teams have that other teams don't" than "what many/most teams, including title teams, have". Even then, though, it's a chicken and egg thing. PP was 2nd team all-nba in 2009 (21/6/4) but not in 2006 (27/7/5). If someone said you generally needed 2 players that were 1st or 2nd team all-nba to win a title, would PP be seen as that level of a player before KG came to town?
That's not a chicken or the egg thing - that's just a really bad measurement. 1st/2nd team selections are really idiotic for the most part, completely subjective (and thus prone to error), and 100% unscientific. They also tend to be rewards for team success even if that player isn't so great.
It is a chicken or the egg thing, even if it is a bad measurement. Most ways that the analyses of the makeup of championship teams use subjective quantifications to describe the necessary level of player.
