Did San Antonio Show Us All Something?

[raptors999]

just because miami didn't win 3 titles in a row doesn't mean they have a failed model.

the spurs were ALREADY a multiple championship team long before miami was put together. they decisively lost this year, but they still went 2 of 4, while at least making it to the finals every year.

Miami having the Big 3 and nobody else shows its a failed model. Even OKC overpaying Westbrook with KD leaving glaring roster depth issues is a failed model. The fact that the Cavs are using it as a blueprint with the Irving signing shows its a failed model.

[octothorp]

I think that if San Antonio's championship taught us anything, it's that from a team-building perspective, flexibility is key. The changes that they made between last season and this, both in players and strategy, were specifically to counter Miami. They've got a lot of different pieces that they can throw in there as counters to different types of teams. Meanwhile, Miami has increasingly lost flexibility over the last couple years, both in terms of roster flexibility and on-court flexibility.

[iblastoff]

Miami having the Big 3 and nobody else shows its a failed model.

Even OKC overpaying Westbrook with KD leaving glaring roster depth issues is a failed model. The fact that the Cavs are using it as a blueprint with the Irving signing shows its a failed model.

miami winning 2 titles and going to the finals 4 times ever since their relatively young inception shows its NOT a failed model.

westbrook makes what, an average of 15m a year? thats hardly overpaying for a relatively young point guard whos considered top 5 in the entire league. if lowry making 12m is fair, than westbrooks price is also fair.

not sure what the cavs being a horrible team with horrible management have to do with anything.

[thead]

the problem with paying three guys the max will always be how do we plug the holes? Teams have 15 players

[raptors999]

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.

[imanshumpert]

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.

[CalgaryRapsFan]

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.

[white men can't jump]

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.

[psrs1]

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.

[S.R.]

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.

[imanshumpert]

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.

[thead]

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

[special1]

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.

[thead]

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

[S.R.]

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.