Unusual Observation -- The concept of Superteams is overrated.

I know alot of people moan and groan about superteams, especially if superstars decide to pair up with one another or having high value free agents only pursuing bigger markets, like LA or NY. Perhaps, Chicago and SF.

Though, judging the NBA Playoffs, this year and for about the last 2 or 3 decades or so, as free agency started to become more prominent. You could even look at some MLB, NFL, or NHL teams to make this determination. Especially with alot of higher payroll teams, who seem to be struggling, just to get into the playoffs, much less missing them altogether.

Any team needs alot of breaks and being pretty fortunate to win championships at any level.

There are alot of factors involved that need to happen.

1. Health is probably almost number #1 without question. Have to be injury free at the most crucial periods of the season (playoffs, tougher parts of the schedule, or etc).

2. Team chemistry is another big one. Can the superstars coexist on that merit alone? Also, coexisting with rest of the team and the coach. Even more so, can they gel into the same offense, while also having the ability to gel with rest of the team and being able to fit into an offense that the coaches are able to run efficiently.

3. Coaching, it is a matter of good and mediocre coaches, but not as much as you think. Again, it has to be a system and style of play that favors all/most of your superstars, while using the other players in the most complimentary roles. Also, coaching style is important as well, if you have fantastic head coach who is butting heads with star players. Pretty ugly situation.

It worked for past dynasties, like Lakers and Celtics, because most of those key players were drafted by that team, traded to the team, or there was already a superstar in place. And, free agency was still pretty restricted. So, for about 40 years of NBA history, same with MLB and NFL, teams were pretty steady roster wise from year to year. The Bulls entire future changed when they traded for Dennis Rodman.

4. Player personnel ... getting the right players. For the Bulls, it was the perfect move, because Rodman could grab rebounds almost better than anyone in NBA history, while being one of the greatest defenders ever...who also did not demand the ball on offense. That's pretty important for alot of teams, because one that 3rd wheel player may need to be great defensive or complimentary player. Krause, at the time, is still pretty underrated as GM. Good thing, he often didn't listen to MJ, just looking at the Wizards/Bobcats/Hornets. Greatest ever, but he doesn't seem to be able to pick players, very well. That's why some small market teams are so doomed, because they have the right GM who can pick all of the right players, but getting a superstar to join the roster is most difficult parts. Unless, you end up like Denver, Utah, Milwaukee, or Phoenix, where some of your picks have turned into superstars from pretty middling or lower value draft picks.

5. Luck or being fortunate in player moves...even with two or three (or more) stars you still have to make the right moves across the board with FA signings and draft picks. You still need to have good veterans and even young prospects who can grow into great contributors, perhaps even star level players in the future. And, they have stay healthy, motivated, out of controversy, and be able to fit into team...and like the city...and be flexible. Ok.

6. Age is pretty significant, because if you have a team full of older superstars with gigantic salary cap and bottom round draft picks. Your championship window is limited to roughly 2 to 5 years, maybe one for some teams, given health and everything above. Even with that being said, younger superstars can work against you as well. Let's say you get 3 superstars who are pretty early in their careers at the same time, somehow. Everything above still applies, while they have to still be able to win and grow as players. Those aspects can be mercurial as well, because you have to hope that they improve, while playing together. Look at the T-Wolves for the last few years, even the mid-90s Mavs (w/ Kidd/Jackson/Mashburn). A team can be very combustible or just not that competitive. Probably the 98-2002 Blazers had the best of both worlds and still succumb to everything I just mentioned. Rasheed was a superstar blooming, while they also had Pippen, Sabonis, Schrempf, and Smith (passed their primes, a little) Also, had great young players, like Stoudamire, Wells, and Randolph. They got progressively worse.

7. Defense...in basketball, if you have three or more superstar players, at least half of them need to be at worst average on defense. I don't think I can find too many NBA champions were more than half of its starters mildly average to worse on defense. It's especially imperative in past and modern times, before you needed mainly great 1 on 1 defense, as now switching is much more critical. If a star is mediocre at both, along with other stars, that means you are going to be pretty limited.

8. Versatility. So, you pretty much need 3 stars who are versatile on both offense and defense.

Really, Miami was the only that broke through and could sustain it for a hot minute, because their guys were young enough and versatile that they could be pretty formidable. GS simply were in the right place at the right time with KD.

But, looking at many other teams, like 2003-04 Lakers, 96-99 Rockets, 2010 Knicks, 2007-2012 Celtics, 2012-15 Nets...