Breaking Preconceived Notions: "You can't win a championship without a _____"

Basically you need a good team lol

 

Oh and a superstar

 

Of course there has been exceptions to not needing a superstar, but the pistons had a lot of good players and AMAZING defense.
9/10 times you're going to need a superstar.
Jordan, Hakeem, Kobe.. It's always a superstar

 

The talent, the skill, the heart to will your team. That's why LeBron can't do it. He may be great but he doesn't have heart.

Someone with amazing talent and a huge drive to win really sets a team off. Now put some good role players around him and see what happens.

Basketball also is just a 5 on 5 sport. One amazing player makes a HUGE difference on the court. Of course a superstar makes a difference in all sports, but most sports don't have just 10 people on the court at once and are more of a team effort.

I don't know, does that make any sense?

 

a body temperature somewhere in the high 90's

 

just thought of Gene Hackman from The Replacements haha

 

Because superstars also come with aid from the refs.

 

I don't buy the argument requiring a star 100%, but I do admit that it's the best answer so far, or maybe the easiest.

That magical property of the superstar is this: every team with home court advantage come playoff time is a good team. In a best of seven series, the team that normally wins is the one that adapts its defense to destroy the offense of the other team, especially in crunch time. A superstar obviates this tactic by 1. splitting the doule team and scoring, or 2. exploiting the double team by dishing to the open man and allowing them to score. It's a time-tested formula that works, but they're are other ways.

 

3. A player who can create a good shot against a set D at the end of the game (aka: a closer)


People often say you need a (single) closer to win a championship, but I've always thought it could be summed up as offensive weapons, while you have several players who can hit shots or create off the dribble. Honestly, I think if a team has a real shot, they need a few guys who can create.

Chicago typically had one main closer in MJ with Paxson, Armstrong, or Pippen coming in for occasions. In 2nd championship run, they had not only Jordan, but Kukoc and Kerr (when he's open).

Houston had Olajuwon, but they had Cassell, Smith, Maxwell, Elie, Horry, and Drexler (the following year) who could hit shots or create off the dribble.

San Antonio had 3 or 4 guys, Ginobili, Parker, Finley, and Barry, briefly Stephen Jackson. Probably throw in Duncan as well.





More or less, it's always about matchups, if your creator is cold or is getting taken out of the game by a great defense/defenders (triple teamed those other players should be ready to win the game).

 

It actually seems pretty reasonable to me. Historically, championships are won with good teams AND a superstar. The defense and rebounding are much easier to improve through coaching. A superstar is VERY difficult to find. The other aspects of a championship contender can come through coaching, hard work, chemistry, and teamwork.

I actually don't disagree with much of the rest of your post. And, superstars aren't some magical beings that make crappy teams good. The truth behind the superstar impact is more that they are severely underpaid. If Lebron and Wade were able to be paid what they are worth, they wouldn't be on the same team. You could conceivably build a championship team with some other collection of "underpaid" or high value players. The pistons did that by getting some players that were exceptional defenders. Again, it's not something special about the arbitrary label of superstar, it's the fact that a Lebron or Wade or Howard or Kobe adds significantly more value to their team than the totality of their max contracts.

But, sorry, I'm not going to get on board with an average defensive team full of good role players that just outrun other teams with their depth in a lockout season. They aren't good enough to win a championship.


We can go through and explain the confines of the salary cap in every thread or we can make the much simpler comment that "they don't have a superstar, they won't win a championship". Would you prefer we say "They don't have a great defense and they don't have a late game closer. Also as the game slows down and there is more time in between games in the playoffs, their depth will have less of an impact. Other playoff teams will shorten up their rotations and the impact of their best players (sometimes superstars) will be magnified making their already average defense look mediocre. And, when coaches have more time to gameplan for these very good role players they will find it much more difficult to score while there a select few players in the league (generally labeled superstars) that seemingly find ways to score on anyone"?

 

There have been title winning teams that rebounded poorly, including the Rockets.

 

I layed out the reasoning behind the "you can't win a championship without a superstar" comments. It is an educated conclusion both because it considers the merits of the current team and it takes into account historical evidence. If you and others want to bury your heads in the sand and ignore the truth more power to you.

ra ra go nuggets go!! championship here you come!

but out of respect to you guys, i'll try to leave the superstar talk alone and discuss why teams without one can't win it all.