Tweet
During the off season of 2013, through the Gay trade and up until the Raps caught fire a couple weeks after the Lowry to NY trade was knixed, here at RR we debated the best path to a championship ad naseum. Caveat's were made, parallels were prependiculared, and examples were outliered, but overall, I think it's fair to say that most people concurred with two general statements:
1) You need superstar talent to make and win the finals
2) The most statistically likely way to get said superstar is through the draft.
I myself believed that at least one of Derozan/Gay needed to be moved, and a full on tank was the best course of action. I was initially disappointed when word came through that Dolan had ended my tank for wiggins dream.
This is not entirely surprising. Since at least the Jordan era, the dominant thinking in the NBA has been that talent wins championships, specifically, that you need a "big three" and/or transcendent superstar if you want to fulfill your dreams of hoisting the LO'B trophy in June. The impact of coaches was dubious, and papers were written drawing the conclusion that for the most part, they just didn't have an impact.
That narrative may be changing. With the dismantling of the Heat in the 2014 finals by the Spurs and the success this year of the Hawks, (and perhaps to a lesser degree, the Warriors), are we witnessing a shift in what the "model" for success?
Kirk Goldsberry of Grantland, recently wrote an article about the impact of coaching. Valuing coaches goes hand in hand with valuing the system. The part of his article I enjoyed the most was this:
His answer is particularly poignant because he's responsible for all those wonderful shot charts that illustrate the proficiency of individual players.
Now the answer to how do you win a championship was never black and white, even when statements are qualified with "most likely" or "historically". Ginobli and Parker were superstars, but would they have been the same superstars if they weren't drafted by the Spurs? The converse is also true, no matter how good a system is, 15 random posters from this forum do not a NBA championship team make. Talent will always matter.
The extent that the narrative shifts from system over talent will probably come down to how far Atlanta goes in the playoffs. Atlanta has no true superstars, on either end of the floor. Even Detroit, the oft cited "no superstar champions" had defensive superstar Ben Wallace. If Hawks face and beat the Cavaliers in a playoff series, the system over talent debate would be pretty hard to refute. Cleveland has at least two, (Lebron and Kyrie) and possibly three (Love) players who are more talented than anyone on the Hawks. Conversely, if the Hawks get bounced in the first or second round it will probably reinforce the narrative, that while systems may overcome talent in the regular season, talent remains the difference maker in the second season.
Regardless, of what happens with narratives we use to talk about basketball it is pretty evident we are seeing new things happen on the court. Goldsberry summarizes the shift at the end of his article:
Regardless of where you land on the "talent" or "system" question, the debate itself is vitally important for the Raptors. Unlike the Thunder, Pelicans, Cavs, or Clippers, we don't have the ability to compete on raw talent. I think it's also pretty obvious we don't have a coach who is good at generating open shots, and based on opponent assists numbers (according to the PhD Steve's latest podcast) a defensive system that stops other teams from generating them.
Winning championships is some combination of system and talent. Our success this (and last) season does not change the fact that we are two ingredients away on a two ingredient recipe.
1) You need superstar talent to make and win the finals
2) The most statistically likely way to get said superstar is through the draft.
I myself believed that at least one of Derozan/Gay needed to be moved, and a full on tank was the best course of action. I was initially disappointed when word came through that Dolan had ended my tank for wiggins dream.
This is not entirely surprising. Since at least the Jordan era, the dominant thinking in the NBA has been that talent wins championships, specifically, that you need a "big three" and/or transcendent superstar if you want to fulfill your dreams of hoisting the LO'B trophy in June. The impact of coaches was dubious, and papers were written drawing the conclusion that for the most part, they just didn't have an impact.
That narrative may be changing. With the dismantling of the Heat in the 2014 finals by the Spurs and the success this year of the Hawks, (and perhaps to a lesser degree, the Warriors), are we witnessing a shift in what the "model" for success?
Kirk Goldsberry of Grantland, recently wrote an article about the impact of coaching. Valuing coaches goes hand in hand with valuing the system. The part of his article I enjoyed the most was this:
Pop quiz, hotshot: Who’s the best shooter in the NBA?
A: The open shooter.
Perimeter success in today’s NBA is as much a reflection of shot quality as it is shooter quality. Just ask Danny Green, whose career has gone from the waiver wire to spot-up legend largely by switching systems. But, if we believe in this “Danny Green effect,” we must also allow for an opposite phenomenon, where players seemingly devolve after changing systems.
A: The open shooter.
Perimeter success in today’s NBA is as much a reflection of shot quality as it is shooter quality. Just ask Danny Green, whose career has gone from the waiver wire to spot-up legend largely by switching systems. But, if we believe in this “Danny Green effect,” we must also allow for an opposite phenomenon, where players seemingly devolve after changing systems.
Now the answer to how do you win a championship was never black and white, even when statements are qualified with "most likely" or "historically". Ginobli and Parker were superstars, but would they have been the same superstars if they weren't drafted by the Spurs? The converse is also true, no matter how good a system is, 15 random posters from this forum do not a NBA championship team make. Talent will always matter.
The extent that the narrative shifts from system over talent will probably come down to how far Atlanta goes in the playoffs. Atlanta has no true superstars, on either end of the floor. Even Detroit, the oft cited "no superstar champions" had defensive superstar Ben Wallace. If Hawks face and beat the Cavaliers in a playoff series, the system over talent debate would be pretty hard to refute. Cleveland has at least two, (Lebron and Kyrie) and possibly three (Love) players who are more talented than anyone on the Hawks. Conversely, if the Hawks get bounced in the first or second round it will probably reinforce the narrative, that while systems may overcome talent in the regular season, talent remains the difference maker in the second season.
Regardless, of what happens with narratives we use to talk about basketball it is pretty evident we are seeing new things happen on the court. Goldsberry summarizes the shift at the end of his article:
To hear LeGarie tell it, the “challenge will be to find the ball-movers instead of the ball-stoppers.” It’s unclear if he’s talking about players or coaches. It is probably both.
Winning championships is some combination of system and talent. Our success this (and last) season does not change the fact that we are two ingredients away on a two ingredient recipe.
Comment