Wrong about the "Superstar" to win a championship

[Nilanka]

I fail to understand how anyone thinks Tim Duncan isn't a "superstar". Yes, he's a shadow of his former self from a physical perspective, but where he now lacks in speed, strength and agility, he makes up for it with poise, steadiness, experience and leadership (i.e. the lesser known qualities of a superstar).

[Letter N]

I fail to understand how anyone thinks Tim Duncan isn't a "superstar". Yes, he's a shadow of his former self from a physical perspective, but where he now lacks in speed, strength and agility, he makes up for it with poise, steadiness, experience and leadership (i.e. the lesser known qualities of a superstar).

Exactly
Hell if you have 3 first ballot Hall-of-Famers on your team then people need to realize at least one of them is a superstar.

[007]

Exactly
Hell if you have 3 first ballot Hall-of-Famers on your team then people need to realize at least one of them is a superstar.

Or that if you put them on the same team, and those first ballot players are unselfish and team-first then together they can make the team a superstar team.

[DanH]

Exactly
Hell if you have 3 first ballot Hall-of-Famers on your team then people need to realize at least one of them is a superstar.

Even more so, what people need to realize is that even if you accept that the Spurs are an example of a non-superstar model, the Spurs model (3 first ballot HOFers, best coach in the NBA, tremendous depth) is probably significantly more difficult to replicate than the superstar model.

[stooley]

Or that if you put them on the same team, and those first ballot players are unselfish and team-first then together they can make the team a superstar team.

the fact that that can exist without a top 10 player is exactly the point.

[OldSkoolCool]

The Spurs winning does prove it's possible to beat the with the best player in the world, without a top 10 player (although former top 3 player). However, it doesn't change the function for winning a championship. And the last two finals proved a perfect case study.

the fact that that can exist without a top 10 player is exactly the point.

I don't get it.

Tim Duncan is arguably a top 3 player OF ALL TIME (but isn't a superstar?)

Tony Parker was the second best PG in the league (Curry was the best IMO)

Manu was the best SG in the entire league this season.

Leonard won the Finals MVP above all those guys at the age of 20!! And not because that list of players played bad, but because he was that good. (and some of you still think DD is better than Leonard)

SMDH

[Mindlessness]

I don't get it.

Tim Duncan is arguably a top 3 player OF ALL TIME (but isn't a superstar?)

Tony Parker was the second best PG in the league (Curry was the best IMO)

Manu was the best SG in the entire league this season.

Leonard won the Finals MVP above all those guys at the age of 20!! And not because that list of players played bad, but because he was that good. (and some of you still think DD is better than Leonard)

SMDH

Point #1. Don't overdo it. I don't disagree with the notion that the Spurs at least have several all-star lite players. But I think first of all, Jordan, LeBron, and Abdul-Jabbar among others have something to say about your first point.

Point #2. Chris Paul is alive.

Point #3. And, yes, Manu is awesome, but let's not go overboard, George/Stephenson, DD, Thompson and Ellis all had better seasons than him.

[Stevo]

Geez, didn't know this thread would become "Spurs HAVE superstars!"

Yes, the Spurs have Superstars. I dare say and agree that talent-wise Parker, Duncan trump many NBA players in the last couple years, despite being a bit off their prime.

But their team does not rely on them to win them the game. They are not deemed "the difference maker" to winning. Their system is.

Case in point was Parker having bad games in the playoffs but the Spurs still winning. Duncan was not asked to play 40 minutes a game because he was the best option (and I still think he is), he was to play for match-ups and reserve stamina due to his advanced age.

Ginobli was the spark off the bench.

These guys were and are still in a manner superstars, but none of them are playing the traditional superstar role; the MJ's, Lebrons, Nowitski's, Shaqs, Kobe's, A.I.'s and so on.......and this is why we state that the Spurs have shown with a good system in place, a coach that commands respect and humble and unselfish players an NBA team in today's NBA can win the championship.

Some guys are getting too dicey about the superstar.

Kwahi Leonard won the NBA, but would anyone really disagree if the MVP award was given to coach Pop instead? Or deferred to the entire Spurs team as opposed to just one player? They were all vital to winning. I dare say that even if they lost one of Duncan, Parker, Ginobli, Leonard to injury the Spurs would still have a decent chance of beating the Heat. The ball-movement and defensive rotations were just ridiculous this year.

THE SPURS DIDN'T NEED A SUPERSTAR (or a player playing in that traditional style\manner) TO WIN!

[JawsGT]

Geez, didn't know this thread would become "Spurs HAVE superstars!"

Yes, the Spurs have Superstars. I dare say and agree that talent-wise Parker, Duncan trump many NBA players in the last couple years, despite being a bit off their prime.

But their team does not rely on them to win them the game. They are not deemed "the difference maker" to winning. Their system is.

Case in point was Parker having bad games in the playoffs but the Spurs still winning. Duncan was not asked to play 40 minutes a game because he was the best option (and I still think he is), he was to play for match-ups and reserve stamina due to his advanced age.

Ginobli was the spark off the bench.

These guys were and are still in a manner superstars, but none of them are playing the traditional superstar role; the MJ's, Lebrons, Nowitski's, Shaqs, Kobe's, A.I.'s and so on.......and this is why we state that the Spurs have shown with a good system in place, a coach that commands respect and humble and unselfish players an NBA team in today's NBA can win the championship.

Some guys are getting too dicey about the superstar.

Kwahi Leonard won the NBA, but would anyone really disagree if the MVP award was given to coach Pop instead? Or deferred to the entire Spurs team as opposed to just one player? They were all vital to winning. I dare say that even if they lost one of Duncan, Parker, Ginobli, Leonard to injury the Spurs would still have a decent chance of beating the Heat. The ball-movement and defensive rotations were just ridiculous this year.

THE SPURS DIDN'T NEED A SUPERSTAR (or a player playing in that traditional style\manner) TO WIN!

I agree with you Steveo. The Spurs do not rely on a single player to dominate the game in the manner that most teams with a superstar/superstars do. Clearly there are superstars on this team, but they (Duncan, Ginobili, Parker) are past their primes and in no way should be expected to perform at a superstar level. If the Spurs had to rely on one of the above in he manner that the Heat relied on LBJ, then I wonder if they would have the same success?

And that's what really makes the Spurs so special. The recognition that relying on one or two guys to dominate the ball on the offensive side to generate shot opportunities for the whole team would not work for them, and then the team buying in to a system that maximizes the collective talents of the team. The fact that Boris Diaw was in the Finals MVP talk, right along with Leonard, Duncan and Parker speaks volumes to me.

[ebrian]

I think all that these Finals proved was that there are many possibilities in the NBA, as well as all sports in general. There is no one way to build a championship team. However, if you're looking at the way the Spurs team was built and trying to model your team after that, in my opinion you're barking up the wrong tree.

I believe that 99% of the if you model your team after the Spurs, you'll fail miserably. And that's because there's only one Gregg Popovich, and only one Tim Duncan. You're also not going to get a championship team when the average draft position of your starting 5 is 22nd overall, and a solid bench of 5 players averaging 42nd overall. Mostly likely if you follow that model, you'll be a bottom dweller for decades.

This is actually kind of ridiculous if you think about it:

Tony Parker: 28th pick (2001)
Boris Diaw: 21st (2003)
Kawhi Leonard: 15th (2011)
Danny Green: 46th (2009)
Manu Ginobili: 57th (1999)
Tiago Splitter: 28th (2007)
Patty Mills: 55th (2009)
Cory Joseph: 29th (2011)

[ebrian]

Also to add to the above, if you go out and sign 3 of the top 30 players in the league, you have a higher chance of getting into the playoffs than if you follow the Spurs' model. The stars truly aligned for the Spurs' organization.

[stooley]

I think all that these Finals proved was that there are many possibilities in the NBA, as well as all sports in general. There is no one way to build a championship team. However, if you're looking at the way the Spurs team was built and trying to model your team after that, in my opinion you're barking up the wrong tree.

I believe that 99% of the if you model your team after the Spurs, you'll fail miserably. And that's because there's only one Gregg Popovich, and only one Tim Duncan. You're also not going to get a championship team when the average draft position of your starting 5 is 22nd overall, and a solid bench of 5 players averaging 42nd overall. Mostly likely if you follow that model, you'll be a bottom dweller for decades.

This is actually kind of ridiculous if you think about it:

You can say this about pretty much every championship team.

The stars had to align for Miami, for the shaq/kobe lakers for the pistons, for the bulls, etc.

The fact is, if you're looking purely at at vague statistical odds, a 1/30 chance of winning is pretty slim.

The best bet might be to get a top 10 player (please stop using superstar) on your team, but what if that's not a possibility?

[JawsGT]

I think all that these Finals proved was that there are many possibilities in the NBA, as well as all sports in general. There is no one way to build a championship team. However, if you're looking at the way the Spurs team was built and trying to model your team after that, in my opinion you're barking up the wrong tree.

I believe that 99% of the if you model your team after the Spurs, you'll fail miserably. And that's because there's only one Gregg Popovich, and only one Tim Duncan. You're also not going to get a championship team when the average draft position of your starting 5 is 22nd overall, and a solid bench of 5 players averaging 42nd overall. Mostly likely if you follow that model, you'll be a bottom dweller for decades.

This is actually kind of ridiculous if you think about it:

I agree. Trying to build in the manner that the Spurs did would be next to impossible to emulate. Everyone in the organization needs to be on the same, and striving for the same goals. There is something very special going on there. The relationships between players and coaches and the GM, must be rather unique in the sports world I would imagine. There is a tremendous amount of respect for colleagues in that organization. Little to no ego's, and the vets are willing to do whats best for the team.

However, it should be possible to emulate the style of play that the Spurs employ. Selfless players that aren't worried about stats, lots of ball movement, and each player that steps on the floor knows their role and is accepting of that, while still feeling like an important part of the club regardless of what that role is. That isn't easy either, but not a bad approach to strive for when managing a club.

[Letter N]

If anything we should look at how the Rockets (and Red Wings in the NHL) run their organization, in the sense that they send their young guys down to learn their system in the minors (D-league/AHL) so that when they come up they know exactly how to fit into the system and play the game that the team wants.

[ebrian]

You can say this about pretty much every championship team.

The stars had to align for Miami, for the shaq/kobe lakers for the pistons, for the bulls, etc.

The fact is, if you're looking purely at at vague statistical odds, a 1/30 chance of winning is pretty slim.

The best bet might be to get a top 10 player (please stop using superstar) on your team, but what if that's not a possibility?

No, you can't. Some teams it comes together like the Pistons, Spurs, Mavericks. But other championship teams won because they simply had better players. Does it take a bit of luck? Sure. Of course it does. But if you load your team with top players, you're bound to perform better than if you don't. Building your team around 2nd round picks, as in the Spurs way, is not a model you want to chase after.

When you look at the Bulls, Lakers, Celtics -- these were teams with dominant players at their position. Not only did the Spurs not have dominant players, most of their guys were low picks. As mentioned, 22nd average overall for starting lineup and that includes a #1 pick in Duncan. Another 4-5 guys on the bench that were middle 2nd round (~45th) picks. I'm willing to bet there isn't a single team in the NBA that has a worse draft pick average of top 10 players than the Spurs.

I didn't use the word superstar in my post so I'm not sure where this is coming from. I think it is easier to attract a top 10 player than landing 8 quality NBA players with several ~35th overall picks (average pick of Spurs players minus Duncan).