Thy actually had 2.
I'm sorry, I should have clarified. My point (& hope for Pacer fans) was we do not HAVE to have a Superstar to get to the finals, & in a series, it's anyones game. LA was a better team, but had we had A.Davis vs. Bender, it might have been a very different story.
Where his statment does make sense is that the NBA has the LEAST amount of different Champions in the last 20+ years then ANY OTHER SPORT!
Since 1980 (31 years!), only 8 teams: LA (10), CHI (6), BOS (4), SA (4), Hou (2), DET (2), PHI (2), MIA (1) have won a championship. Compare that to Football, Baseball, Hockey - it makes them all look far more competitive. Of course it's worth pointing out that 26 of those 31 are in big markets, so take that for what it's worth as well.
"Larry Bird: You are Officially On the Clock! (3/24/08)"
(Watching You Like A Hawk!)
That pistons team was something special they didnt have superstars but several star players at their positions, but they also were quite possibly the best defensive team ever in the nba, i think a team could copy them but it would take a tough defensive minded coach and scorers who can score in the 4th quarter.
The reason you need a "superstar" to win the championship, is to get enough "superstar calls" to counterbalance the "superstar calls" for the other team. Sometimes a player with the reputation of being a stellar defender will work, as they may get the benifit of the doubt as well. Sometimes being a mere "star" is enough, provided you are known as "clutch". It is much easier to overcome the "superstar calls" during the regular season, but once the playoffs start, it is the way game will be called. Anyone who doesn't beleive it has never watched the NBA playoffs.
This is not the case with some other teams. Miami may be getting the idea. In NY, I don't know if someone like Melo will ever get the idea.
Looking back at that Detroit team and its players... How crazy is it that Rasheed didn't become a superstar?
Back in 2000, when young Sheed had all these amazing games against the Lakers in the playoffs (with Blazers), he was clearly the first in line to be the next big superstar.
If he wasn't so lazy in every other game, and if he didn't start jacking up bad 3s, we wouldn't be talking about Pistons as a no-superstar team.
I would take this discussion a step further and say that the best player wins the championship most of the time. Obviously some years deciding who the "best player" is can be difficult.
But starting in the 80's. You had Bird and Magic winning 8 of the 10. We can argue whether Bird was better than Magic or the other way around, but it is a fair statement to say the best player won the championships. Bird or magic was the best player.
1983 - Sixers were loaded with talent, I think a case could be made that Moses was as good as any player in that one year. But OK I won't count that.
1989 - Pistons - Was Isiah the best player - no, but Bird and magic had fallen off and MJ wasn't ready yet. So I won't count this one either.
For the 1980's I would argue 80% of the time the best player won.
1990's - the 6 times the Bulls won it - MJ was the best player and the two times the Rockets won it Hakeem was the best player. so that is 8 out of 10.
Pistons won and the Spurs won. OK so 80% of the time the best player won during the 80's
2000 - 2010 - - Shaq was the best player for the first three champpionships.
Spurs in '03, '05, '07 - I think you could make a strong case that Duncan was maybe the best player as as good as any player. I am counting that
Pistons 2004 - OK, didn't have best player.
2006 - Heat - OK not best player.
'08 Celtics - OK not the best player, although pretty close.
'09, '10 - Kobe yes best player.
so for those 11 years I would argue 8 of 11 years the best player won.
so 24 times out of the past 31 years or 78% of the time the best player won the championship.
Give me the best player in the NBA and I like our chances.
Last edited by Unclebuck; 03-29-2011 at 10:05 AM.
Even in the years where "the very best player" didn't win, the team that did win had a player who was pretty close.
Duncan was pretty much a consensus top 5 NBA player during all of the Spurs' title runs.
DWade in 06 pretty much played like the best player.
Celtics had KG, Pierce, Ray Allen. None of them are the best player but that was by far the best trio in the association.
The 04 Pistons are about the only example where a team won who didn't have anyone that was remotely close to being a top 5, 10, or even 15 player in the NBA.
Leaving sheed out of the equation, before the pistons started winning so many games, which of those guys was an all-star? The record teams have definitely impacts whether or not a player will make the ASG.
Now, bare with me for a second, knowing that our young guys aren't as good as those pistons were and never might be, aren't some us of hoping/dreaming that the young players we have can become all-star or borderline all-star players? Whether or not it's realistic, that's a second, but didn't we believe last year when we traded for DC he would be able to play in a couple of ASG? And don't we feel that Roy might end up in the ASG once or twice? Now Danny has already been there once and we keep on dreaming that the sky is the limit for PG.
Tyler reaching it seems highly unlikely to me, but I do enjoy what he brings to the table a lot... now, try to envision this group improving together and start to gel, we have a look somewhat like this:
DC 18 PPG, 10 APG
PG 24 PPG, little bit of everything
DG 22 PPG, little bit of everything
Roy 18 PPG, 9/10 RPG, 2/3 BPG
I'm telling you, if you win 55+ games you get multiple all-stars, have the same statlines when you're winning 35/40 you get none.
Having all-stars or superstars might be nice to talk about and getting the refs to bail you out, but....
ball don't lie
Yay, I don't know if we're going back to the play-offs!
That is true, but I would argue (even with the limited information you have provided) that the players on the 55 + win team are much better than the players on a 35-40 win team even if the players have the exact same stats.
LOL, kudos for pointing that out. Somebody has to put up stats on every team. The IU basketball team would have someone scoring if they were in the NBA.
Was Terry Catledge a star because he scored for expansion Orlando? Was Doug West a star because he put up some big years?
People get too hung up on this guy putting up this number or that number. But on a good team a Ron Harper will go from Scoring 20 a game for the Clippers, to being a 10 PPG role player with greater talent around him.
Part of the reason that Danny Granger has been so over rated by so many for so long.
Obviously my prior statement is dealing in very general terms.
In your scenerio - I would argue that the stats the player is putting up on a good team are more important than the stats they are putting up on a bad team. They are certainly more valuable stats.
I would be interested in looking at individual players.
Iverson is probably a good example. I believe his scoring average was similar in 2001 when they got to the Finals vs the other years. To further flesh this out I would need to go back and look year by year.
The difference is that Iverson was always considered an elite guy. He was always an elite option.
Think of guys like Ron Harper, Mark Aguire, Terry Cummings, Terry Catledge, Christian Laettner, Jim Jackson and Jamaal Mashburn as the flipside. Guys who put up huge numbers on bad teams. Who had to fill 2nd and 3rd banana roles once they got to good teams.
It wasn't that they weren't all good NBA players. They just were never what their peak statistics showed them to be.
I would feel the same way, that they are better players. However the fact is that it mostly comes down to perception. Stats are not the sole reason you win games, they can give a decent indication, and then you can always add more in-depth stats as true ***%, efficiency, and finally you can point to stuff like energy, intangibles, things that cannot be measured.
Those 3 things combined makes you win games, or not. As somebody else in this thread pointed out, you don't necessarily need the superstars, you need a group of guys that can play together. Right now we're going from learning together, to growing together, to playing together. I'll try to clarify what I exactly mean:
Given that the Pacers don't really do well in the superstar-department at this point in time, I'm just hoping that we can do something the way Detroit did it, saying that if you look at our current situation like it's the 2014 season now, there can be some similarities between the 2011 Pacers and the Pistons-group pre-succes.
Edit: In terms of having the ability to put up decent numbers, the wins will decide eventually whether or not they are that good.
Last edited by pacersgroningen; 03-29-2011 at 11:52 AM. Reason: Addition to clarify
Yay, I don't know if we're going back to the play-offs!
You also have to be careful with players who are role players but are lucky to be on teams with superstars - many times those players are over-valued. . many teams over the years were burned by signing 3rd or 4th options from a championship caliber team, and it turned out those players weren't very good unless they were playing with a superstar.
I'm not sure one can argue against your logic other than to say that also during the 80's the best player also would have had the best talent around him as well.
Really it is a mixture. Kevin Garnett arguably was the best overall player for a couple of years in Min. and never really did anything. LeBron was the best player in Cleveland for a couple of years and did not win it all.
Michael never won a single title without Pippen & the crew around him.
Even Bryant couldn't will the Lakers to a championship without an almost all-star cast around him.
However, as you state, having the best player as a foundation is a really great way to start.