I’m going to propose an argument. Bear with me, this may be a little long. I was recently reminded of a remark Phil Jackson made a few years ago, that the Spurs’ ‘99 NBA Championship should come with an asterisk. So I’ve devised with the following argument: If the Spurs’ championships should come with an asterisk, then so should the Bulls’ and, I hate to admit it, the Rockets’: an asterisk that reads ‘Expansion Era.’ Consider: 1. 6 teams, forming roughly 20% of the NBA, have been added to the league since the late ‘80s\early ‘90s. In some industries, a 20% increase in locations or offices in 10 years would be suicidal, a formula for disaster. Luckily for the NBA, the league was actually able to cash in on expansion and its popularity. Having the most marketable and marketed athlete of all time among your ranks helps as well. When did the Bulls when their championships again (or broke the single season wins record)? The Rockets? Why are the current Lakers, one of the league's most dominant yet incomplete teams, so successful? 2. For the last decade, during this era of expansion, the team with the league’s best player wins the championship. The problem is, this hasn’t always been true. During the ‘60s, Chamberlain was the league’s best player, followed by Oscar Robertson. But the Celtics dominated the decade. The ‘70s, one can make an argument for Kareem or Dr. J, yet their teams didn’t necessarily dominate the decade. The ‘80s, Bird vs. Magic for league’s best player was a wash, until Jordan came along. And we know who dominated (and didn’t dominate) that decade. Until recently, the mantra to winning a championship has always been fielding the best possible team, not ‘get the best player and surround him with role players who don’t make mistakes.’ Therefore, the Pistons were the league’s last great team, not the Bulls nor the Rockets. Granted, its hard to quantify the exact impact expansion had on the Bulls’ and Rockets’ championship prospects, but the coincidence is hard to ignore. Just something I felt the need to express during this day of boredom. Feel free to agree\disagree.
We already have an asterisk According to your thought, the rockets are a team that dominated w/out the best player.
I'm sorry, but I thought MJ was retired when the Rocks' won their championships, that Dream was the league's 'Best player.' My bad.
heypartner, It's called 'proper utilization.' Shaq's game, much like MJ's, has really been enhanced by structure. I'll admit, Shaq vs. Duncan does give my theory problems, and I thought of that while I was typing. IMHO, Shaq is the most dominant player, but Duncan is, from a 'purist's standpoint', the league's best and most complete player. The difference, of course, is supporting cast. So I'll concede the present day Lakers from the argument, which is probably a sign that the NBA is destined for a return to better days.
You can't have us consider #2 in your post (about Wilt) and then say your theory covers Duncan. Your theory covers the 8yrs of Jordan era only, pretty much by your own admission... well, for cool theories. I always thought I had the best. Every champion dating back to Magic's first champion had the best player who ever lived, or a #1 pick on them, if not more. This is how it works: Jordan was the best player ever Treat Bird as the #1, because had Bird not been drafted #6 a year before he was going to play, the draft would have been #1a and #1b, and likely Bird the outright #1. Besides, the Lakers had Kareem as #1 anyhow each yr they won, so Magic could have been the #2, and the theory would still hold. Treat Moses Malone as a #1 had he not forced the league to change FA rules as a high school kid, and if that is not enough, possibly Dr. J as one for leaving early as a junior to join the ABA after going 20/20 at UMass. Everyone else was a #1, and note that the Lakers had 2 #1s; the Celtics has 2 in 1986; Pistons had the #1 and #2 from the same draft, and the Spurs had two #1s. If you go back further, Seattle is the last team not to have a #1. But Washington before them did...the #1 (Hayes) and #2 (Unseld) from the same draft. Portland had Walton. This means nothing, as cool theories go. But you have to admit it is cool, nonetheless.
How so? In your first argument you stated after the pistons the league expanded and since then the teams winning chapionships have the leagues best player surrounded by good role players. And that after shaq and kobe the lakers are incomplete. So how can the lakers be a sign that the league is going back to the glory days since the initial argument still holds true? I agree with your initial post that the NBA became watered down and I think that it still is.
Strange Fruit, I concede that because I feel that Duncan is the league's best player, yet the Lakers are the champs. Plus, while the Lakers are incomplete, they are still one of the better built teams in the league. But then again, seeing teams like Dallas and Sacramento, teams that have an even better mix of players than the Lakers, give me hope that the talent level is starting to rise league-wide. So, indications that the league is 'coming back:' 1. The team with the best player isn't the obvious favorite to win the title, unlike the Jordan-era Bulls, or to a lesser degree the Dream-era Rockets. 2. Teams like Dallas, Detroit, Portland, and Sacramento are making teams realize the value of depth and overall talent level, Detroit especially. 3. This will be the 10th straight solid draft, which is incredible! Even the Class of 2000, considered a 'weak' class, they're making valuable contributions. And there doesn't seem to be an end to the incredible run of good, solid, deep drafts in sight, despite the mass exodus of underclassmen and HSers. The NBA is coming back, BABY!!
I disagree about the 2000 draft. In EVERY draft there are players who made contributions...but that draft is still one of the weakest in NBA history.
