Oh, and they got the Lakers at the perfect imploding time.
Everything that you said was completely true, but this point seems to get forgotten when people hold up that Pistons squad as an example of how you can build a champion. If the Lakers aren't coming apart at the seams, they're winning that series in five games. The Pistons had a lot more talent that they are often given credit for, but really; the Lakers lost that series, just as much as the Pistons won it.
And the fact that Detroit was never again able to get over the hump, to me that's another point in favor of how you really NEED that superstar. You don't necessarily need LeBron, but you better have in-his-prime Paul Pierce.
Umm, the Lakers were lucky that they weren't swept, quite honestly. That team just never really clicked, both on and off the court, especially with the Kobe-Shaq feud and Kobe getting out of going to jail for rape. A lot of people think that if Malone hadn't gotten hurt that the Lakers would have won the title, but I don't think that holds water. Even with the mailman, LA was an older team whose defense was never that great, not to mention the fact that they severely lacked depth of any kind. The only reserve capable of consistently performing was Derek Fisher, Fox was old and out, as was Horace Grant, and Luke Walton proved to be a better fit for the triangle than GP, which isn't really surprising. Of course, Phil never let Payton use his post game against Billups or Tony Parker, so that didn't exactly help their cause, either, and with close to no depth, how many minutes could Malone really have played at age 40? He was still tremendously effective, sure, but he couldn't have averaged 40+ mpg, especially against the younger and deeper Pistons, and he always choked in the finals, anyway, lol
. I just don't see how the Lakers could have possibly offset Detroit's depth, which was a huge reason why they won, imo. The Pistons could call on Lindsey Hunter, Mike James, Corliss Williamson, Elden Campbell, Darvin Ham, and Mehmet Okur off the bench, and them losing Okur, James, and Williamson in the 2004 offseason because they were trying to save money
really hurt them in 04-05. Dumars did get McDyess, who was great for them, and they came tantalizingly close to winning back to back titles, but, ironically, the lack of depth really hurt them after 03-04, in addition to missing out on Melo. Larry Brown and Flip Saunders were also not the least bit interested in playing the young guys (sound familiar? Ugh.) who could have really helped them, like Amir Johnson, Aaron Afflalo, and Carlos Delfino, and once Saunders shifted their approach to more of an offensive than defensive team, Ben Wallace was gone, and that's when it ended, imo, because he was their heart and their superstar, and once he left they seemed to get quite complacent. He was on the downside, yes, but if they'd kept him and still added Webber in 06-07, that's an incredible big man rotation, don't you think? Sorry for the tangent. They had a great run, though. Putting Carmelo on that squad would have been their version of adding Len Bias to the 86 team, in a way, but they blew it, lol
. Wow.
Topic: Is needing a superstar a fallacy? (Read 16469 times)