Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 31 of 31

Thread: Did San Antonio Show Us All Something?

  1. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,310
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote raptors999 wrote: View Post
    Its also the 2 QB problem. If you have 2 Superstars you have none. Have 1 Star pay him 20M and establish he is the star.
    Yeahhh... no.

    Let's not start freaking out here because the Spurs beat the Heat. Multiple stars is still the most likely path to success with few exceptions (Hakeem's Rockets, Dirk's Mavs, Spurs in 2003 etc)

    2013: Heat (Wade, Bron, Bosh)
    2012: Heat (Wade, Bron, Bosh)
    2010: Lakers (Kobe, Pau)
    2009: Lakers (Kobe, Pau)
    2008: Celtics (KG, Pierce, Allen)
    2007: Spurs (Duncan, Parker, Ginobili)
    2006: Heat (Wade, Shaq)
    2005: Spurs (Duncan, Parker, Ginobili)
    2004: Pistons (Billups, Hamilton, Sheed, Big Ben)
    2002: Lakers (Kobe, Shaq)
    2001: Lakers (Kobe, Shaq)
    2000: Lakers (Kobe, Shaq)

    1999: Spurs (Duncan, Robinson)
    1998: Bulls (Jordan, Pippen)
    1997: Bulls (Jordan, Pippen)
    1996: Bulls (Jordan, Pippen)
    1993: Bulls (Jordan, Pippen)
    1992: Bulls (Jordan, Pippen)
    1991: Bulls (Jordan, Pippen)
    1990: Pistons (Isaiah, Dumars)

    1989: Pistons (Isaiah, Dumars)
    1988: Lakers (Magic, Worthy) ---> Scott and Kareem were basically stars also
    1987: Lakers (Magic, Worthy, Kareem)
    1986: Celtics (Bird, McHale, Parish)
    1985: Lakers (Magic, Worthy, Kareem)
    1984: Celtics (Bird, McHale, Parish)
    1983: Sixers (Erving, Malone)
    1982: Lakers (Magic, Kareem)
    1981: Celtics (Bird, Parish)
    1980: Lakers (Magic, Kareem)


    Yeah so let's not start pretending that multiple superstars screws you up lol.
    Last edited by imanshumpert; Thu Jul 3rd, 2014 at 05:15 PM.

  2. Like S.R. liked this post
  3. #22
    Super Moderator CalgaryRapsFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    4,285
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I think San Antonio proved the old axiom true: you win as a team.

    Yes, a team with a superstar can succeed, especially in the NBA (as compared to the other major sports), but a good 'team' can (and should) be able to beat a lesser team that is top-heavy (talent/salary). San Antonio's championship proves that the whole can be greater than the sum of its parts, when players know (and accept) their roles to complement each other and fit together like a puzzle.

    That really is the essence of good team building, regardless of how much money you have to work with. In the NBA it becomes more challenging because there's a salary cap. Over the past decade or so there have been 2 main ways to build a team: option 1 is to get a bunch of players making mid-range money; option 2 is to get a couple players making huge money and fill the roster with min-wage players (ie: LBJ's Cavs). Option 1 is hard to do, since a team needs good overall talent, with there being a positive correlation between talent & salary.

    The correlation is why the draft is viewed as the ideal way to kick-start successful and sustainable team building. Not only do you get highly talented players for relatively low salaries, but they are also controllable for many years and can be signed with Bird-rights which allows the team to spend beyond the salary cap. Assembling a team of talented young players, who can grow together on and off the court, is the ideal approach. Other players can be added to the core via free agency or trade, but having the homegrown nucleus is critical. I think this line of thought is why so many people were in favor of rebuilding/tanking/retooling, since building through free agency and veterans has such a limited (not to mention often much more expensive) window for success (without the long-term development of chemistry).

    A good team is:
    - talented players
    - role definition
    - complimentary strengths/weaknesses that fit together
    - on court chemistry
    - commitment to team-first approach

    Looking around the NBA, I actually see the pendulum swinging back towards proper team-building from the ground up, after almost 2 decades of a superstar driven league. First, I think there are far less superstars than there used to be. Second, I think teams understand that a good 'team' is capable of beating a team built around a single superstar.

    Obviously, as we've seen with the Heat, multiple stars can take less than market value and go against the competitive nature of sports in an attempt to chase rings - and be successful. However, without being surrounded by quality role players and without having quality depth, it's not as easy as it seems for such super-teams to beat a truly good 'team'.

    I grew up watching the Bulls. Yes, MJ is the greatest basketball player of all-time and Pippen was on the inaugural '50 best players of all time' team. However, their sustained success had as much to do with the fact that their core players played together for years and were surrounded by fantastic role players that filled the gaps. As good as MJ and Pippen were, would they have won without having the defense/rebounding of Cartwright/Grant/Longley/Rodman, or the 3pt shooting of Paxson/Kerr, or the 2nd unit scoring spark (Kukoc)? A lot of people look at those Bulls team and say they won 6 championships with a superstar (or superstars), but I think there's much more to it than that. Chemistry, complimentary talent and depth are all crucial to success.
    Last edited by CalgaryRapsFan; Thu Jul 3rd, 2014 at 05:20 PM.

  4. Like psrs1 liked this post
  5. #23
    Raptors Republic Veteran white men can't jump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    7,753
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    San Antonio showed us the route to the championship is full of dirty tricks like

    -Sticking snakes in your opponent's lockers
    -Having an a/c malfunction to force guys to play in a sauna

    I kid, but honestly, these will be the easiest things to replicate about their success.

  6. Like ceez, We Tha North, iblastoff liked this post
  7. #24
    Raptors Republic All-Star
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    1,785
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote CalgaryRapsFan wrote: View Post
    I think San Antonio proved the old axiom true: you win as a team.

    Yes, a team with a superstar can succeed, especially in the NBA (as compared to the other major sports), but a good 'team' can (and should) be able to beat a lesser team that is top-heavy (talent/salary). San Antonio's championship proves that the whole can be greater than the sum of its parts, when players know (and accept) their roles to complement each other and fit together like a puzzle.

    That really is the essence of good team building, regardless of how much money you have to work with. In the NBA it becomes more challenging because there's a salary cap. Over the past decade or so there have been 2 main ways to build a team: option 1 is to get a bunch of players making mid-range money; option 2 is to get a couple players making huge money and fill the roster with min-wage players (ie: LBJ's Cavs). Option 1 is hard to do, since a team needs good overall talent, with there being a positive correlation between talent & salary.

    The correlation is why the draft is viewed as the ideal way to kick-start successful and sustainable team building. Not only do you get highly talented players for relatively low salaries, but they are also controllable for many years and can be signed with Bird-rights which allows the team to spend beyond the salary cap. Assembling a team of talented young players, who can grow together on and off the court, is the ideal approach. Other players can be added to the core via free agency or trade, but having the homegrown nucleus is critical. I think this line of thought is why so many people were in favor of rebuilding/tanking/retooling, since building through free agency and veterans has such a limited (not to mention often much more expensive) window for success (without the long-term development of chemistry).

    A good team is:
    - talented players
    - role definition
    - complimentary strengths/weaknesses that fit together
    - on court chemistry
    - commitment to team-first approach

    Looking around the NBA, I actually see the pendulum swinging back towards proper team-building from the ground up, after almost 2 decades of a superstar driven league. First, I think there are far less superstars than there used to be. Second, I think teams understand that a good 'team' is capable of beating a team built around a single superstar.

    Obviously, as we've seen with the Heat, multiple stars can take less than market value and go against the competitive nature of sports in an attempt to chase rings - and be successful. However, without being surrounded by quality role players and without having quality depth, it's not as easy as it seems for such super-teams to beat a truly good 'team'.

    I grew up watching the Bulls. Yes, MJ is the greatest basketball player of all-time and Pippen was on the inaugural '50 best players of all time' team. However, their sustained success had as much to do with the fact that their core players played together for years and were surrounded by fantastic role players that filled the gaps. As good as MJ and Pippen were, would they have won without having the defense/rebounding of Cartwright/Grant/Longley/Rodman, or the 3pt shooting of Paxson/Kerr, or the 2nd unit scoring spark (Kukoc)? A lot of people look at those Bulls team and say they won 6 championships with a superstar (or superstars), but I think there's much more to it than that. Chemistry, complimentary talent and depth are all crucial to success.
    A team first approach is definitely what it takes to win. Sacrificing for the betterment of the team is necessary. Check your egos and self-centredness at the door. The Spurs epitomize this.

  8. #25
    Raptors Republic Starter S.R.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    697
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    This is what keeps getting overlooked - as much as San Antonio just turned basketball into The Beautiful Game with some great team ball, Miami's gradual erosion has been just as much of an argument for "team."

    We already knew LBJ, Bosh, and Wade couldn't win on their own - that's why they teamed up. Anyone who watched the two championships also say how important Ray Allen, Shane Battier, Mike Miller, and Haslem were to that team. Miami didn't lose their superstar in the past 18 months - they lost their team. It was the drop-off in Wade, Allen, Battier, and Haslem that really killed them, along with the loss of Miller an Bosh's weird career devolution. LBJ, the main superstar in the superstar model, was absolutely fine. It was his team that let him down, and we've known he's needed a team to win a 'ship since the last time he lost to the Spurs in the Finals.

    Basically the team vs. superstar narrative is a bit overblown, and there are a lot of odd references to the "failure" of a team that just hit the Finals four straight times and won two Championships during that time. If that's what you consider a failed model, I'd love to see the Raps experience some of that funk.

  9. Like Puffer liked this post
  10. #26
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,310
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I look at it this way.

    Superstars are the bridge

    Role players and guys that fit and play together as a team are the support system and suspension for the bridge.

    Across an ocean's worth of water lies a championship. Without superstar(s) (the bridge) you are not getting across (us right now). But if you don't have the support system for those superstars (Melo's Knicks?) the bridge is useless because it can't stand, so you still aren't winning.

    In other words you need stars, and you need a supporting cast that fits and plays together as a team.

  11. #27
    Super Moderator thead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    2,983
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote imanshumpert wrote: View Post
    Yeah so let's not start pretending that multiple superstars screws you up lol.
    I don't think two stars screws you over...but that third max or near max guy has all kinds of salary cap implications that make putting a good product on the court pretty tough...at least under the current CBA

  12. #28
    Raptors Republic Starter special1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Toronto, ON
    Posts
    697
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote S.R. wrote: View Post
    This is what keeps getting overlooked - as much as San Antonio just turned basketball into The Beautiful Game with some great team ball, Miami's gradual erosion has been just as much of an argument for "team."

    We already knew LBJ, Bosh, and Wade couldn't win on their own - that's why they teamed up. Anyone who watched the two championships also say how important Ray Allen, Shane Battier, Mike Miller, and Haslem were to that team. Miami didn't lose their superstar in the past 18 months - they lost their team. It was the drop-off in Wade, Allen, Battier, and Haslem that really killed them, along with the loss of Miller an Bosh's weird career devolution. LBJ, the main superstar in the superstar model, was absolutely fine. It was his team that let him down, and we've known he's needed a team to win a 'ship since the last time he lost to the Spurs in the Finals.

    Basically the team vs. superstar narrative is a bit overblown, and there are a lot of odd references to the "failure" of a team that just hit the Finals four straight times and won two Championships during that time. If that's what you consider a failed model, I'd love to see the Raps experience some of that funk.

    I agree

    So winning 2 championships in 4 years (with 4 straight finals appearances) is looked at as a failed model to some?? I actually think its a good model for short term winning but its just NOT sustainable. Nothing lasts forever and players get older. Keep in mind the wear and tear of playing in 4 straight finals also has to be considered.

    San Antonio has almost always been a team that plays great team ball. It just so happens that the "big 3" isn't the same big 3 that they were some years ago and their role players just didn't give enough. Add that to the fact that San Antonio was improved and was clearly the better team and you see the results. Simple as that. Both proved to be successful team building models in my opinion.
    Last edited by special1; Fri Jul 4th, 2014 at 11:18 AM.

  13. #29
    Super Moderator thead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    2,983
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I guess the problem isn't that model failed but that it is unsustainable.

  14. Like ball4life liked this post
  15. #30
    Raptors Republic Starter S.R.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    697
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote thead wrote: View Post
    I guess the problem isn't that model failed but that it is unsustainable.
    This is a good point. Wade is too far past his prime and Bosh is hard to explain, but not having the same impact he used to have. Miami's assumption was that as long as you had a core like this, you'd have solid vets looking to take salary cuts just to play with these guys and win a ring. They got a few of those right off the bat, but it's that part of the system that Miami has struggled to maintain. Either a guy with some life left in his legs gets tired of the partial salary/gets a pay raise after winning a ring and signs elsewhere, or else your old vets only have a year or two left in the tank and you have to replace them. There isn't a lineup of new vets waiting to go to Miami for the mid-level exception, so they're left taking gambles on guys like Beasley and Oden, which looks more desperate now than ever.

    The Spurs organizational ability to draft contributors so late in the first round, and pick up guys like Diaw and coach them into usefulness, that's even more amazing than their selfless ball movement. That + Pop + Duncan = 15 years of competitiveness.

  16. #31
    Raptors Republic Starter
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    547
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote S.R. wrote: View Post
    The Spurs organizational ability to draft contributors so late in the first round, and pick up guys like Diaw and coach them into usefulness, that's even more amazing than their selfless ball movement. That + Pop + Duncan = 15 years of competitiveness.
    I went through all the posts in this thread waiting for someone to mention Greg Popovich...and you're the only one. We can talk about team building all we want (and it IS important in building a winning team) but I think the X Factor here is Coach Pop and his staff, and their ability to do what they do best: create a system that wins.

    They were one of the best offenses in the league this year, a far cry from the "boring" style of play of years past. The coaching staffs ability to adapt their style, and utilize what they have is probably the most important thing they've shown everyone.
    Last edited by nubreed000; Fri Jul 4th, 2014 at 11:52 PM.

  17. Like Puffer, OldSkoolCool liked this post
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •