Winning back-to-back titles: Just how hard is it?

[Lakers_55]

If you read my user title, I have been a fan of the NBA since age 12, in 1967. The Russell era of basketball was about to close, and new eras were about to start. Within those eras was the larger one that lasted 20 years, that no team could repeat as champion.

With Russell gone from the mix after 1969, and Boston out of the playoffs rebuilding, the New York Knicks stormed to the NBA title in 1970. They set a record 18 game winning streak. They had a young and multi-talented team anchored by Willis Reed, Walt Frazier, Bill Bradley, and Dave DeBusschere. Earl Monroe would join shortly.

Anyway, after the Knicks won, they were proclaimed by the writers as basketball's next dynasty. It made sense based on the Knick talent and the fact that having a dynasty in the league was the norm. Out with the old, in with the new.

The applecart was quickly upset. Milwaukee had a second year man named Lew Alcindor (Now Karem Abdul Jabbar) and swung a deal to acquire the best guard to ever play the game to that point, Oscar Robertson. Milwaukee not only set a new win streak record with 20 in a row, they swept the Baltimore Bullets for the title. New Yoirk was expected to be there to face them, but too many injuries. They fell in 7 in the ECF.

Now, the writers were proclaiming the Bucks the next dynasty. However, some said the Knicks would get one from them before Milwaukee took off on a long title run. This was based on the Knick success regular season vs. the Bucks, 4-1 in a year Milwaukee's record was 66-16.

Time for yet another tumble from the forecasts. In the 1972 finale, the Lakers defeated the Knicks. New York got there by upsetting the Boston Celtics who had quickly rebuilt and had a better record. The Lakers set a then record 69-13 regular season mark and a new record winning streak of 33 in a row. Lakers defeated the Bucks in 6 in the WCF, a very tough series.

No one was going to call that Laker team a dynasty! Chamberlain and West were getting old.

1973 came along, and the Knicks grabbed one more title before they fell apart. They upset both the Celtics (68-14) and the Lakers (60-22). Poor Milwaukee didn't even get out of the first round. The anticipated Knick vs. Bucks final never happened

1974, The Bucks got back to the finals, facing Boston, who finally got tired of losing in the ECF with HCA to the Knicks and beat them This was a strange finals series. Bucks had HCA but only 2 games were won by the home team. (None in games 5-7). Series went 7 games, and Boston won. Robertson never played again. Bucks missed he playoffs the following year and traded Abdul Jabbar to the Lakers. So much for the projected dynasties of the Knicks and the Bucks, but while their reigns as elite was short, it was great to watch.

1975 and upstart Golden State Warrior team won it all. versus the Washinton Bullets. Boston couldn't get out of the ECF even with HCA.

1976 Warriors were heavy favorites but Phoenix (the bottom seed I believe)uspet them in a 7 game WCF. Boston won again. Since no team could repeat during these years, I think Celtics would have beaten the Warriors had they played, even without HCA.

1977 Portland had a breakout season, upsetting and sweeping the favored Lakers in the WCF and doing the same in the finals versus the Sixers after spotting them a 2 game series lead. DR. J. would have to wait 6 more years and lose in two more finals series before tasting it all. What about the champion Celtics? They fell to a 44-38 record and were eliminated in the ECSF. The Cowens/White/Havlicek era ended and Bsoton went to the lottery for 2 years, emerging with Larry Bird in 1979.

1978 Washington Bullets (44-38) upset the Seattle Supersonics (45-37). Champ Portland (57-25) was upset by Seattle in round 2

1979 Seattle Supersonics upset the Washinton Bullets.

Now, the Bird/Magic Era of the NBA began.

1980 Lakers over Sixers 4-2. Magic played center for the injured Kareem and scored 42 points. Sixers dispatched the favored Celtics in 7 in the ECF, Lakers ousted the defending champ Sonics.

1981 Boston over Rockets. This was another strange year. Lakers missed Magic Johnson most of the season due to injury and lost first seed. They also lost 1-2 against Houston in round 1. Then, the upsets continued to happen, all the better Western teams stepped aside. Philadelphia missed a golden opportunity to cash in. They had a 3-1 series lead on the Celtics and choked it.

1982 Lakers over Sixers. Playing without HCA in the ECF for the third straight year against the Celtics, Philly won. What I remember about this series was near the end of games 5 and 7. Philly had yet another 3-1 series lead and the Boston fans were chanting "See You Sunday!". In game 7, the chant with the Celtics losing was "Beat LA!" First time I recall ever hearing that catch phrase, but I am sure it had been around.

1983 Philly over Lakers. With the addition of Moses Malone, Andrew Toney going wild, and the support of Dr. J., this was an easy sweep against the champs.

1984 Sixers, the favorites crashed in round 1 vs. the New Jersey Nets. Celtics beat the Lakers in 7 in the finals.

1985. Lakers beat the Celtics

1986 Celtics beat the Rockets 4-2. Lakers fell to Houston in the WCF, 4-1, losing the last 4.

1987 Lakers dethroned the Celtics. Coach Pat Riley guaranteed a Laker repeat in 1988, something he almost regretted.

1988 Lakers did finally get a repeat, breaking the jinx on champs since Russell left. After winning in 3 against the Spurs, the Lakers had to play three 7 game series. Upstart Utah took a 2-1 series lead and we had to beat them in the Palace to catch up. Dallas took us to 7 games with home court winning every game. Against the Pistons, we lost game 1. (We weren't prepared to play Detroit, we expected and were built to play Boston, but they yet again lost another ECF with HCA. So much for the Celtic mystique. It sucks since the Russel era). After winning game 2 narrowly, we got the first of 3 in Motor City, then lost badly in the last two. We won two close games in LA to secure the back-to-back. An interesting side note is the Sports Illustrated article. The first page was devoted to the Lakers, the last two to the Pistons as the team of the future. They were right. Pistons won the next two titles.

So, now that the Lakers beat the no-repeat jinx, every next champion continued it.

1989 Pistons
1990 Pistons
1991 Bulls
1992 Bulls
1993 Bulls and farewell Michael Jordan.
1994 Rockets
1995 Rockets. I think this was the year they came from behind in so many elimination games....Robert Horry having a big role.
1996 Bulls (Jordan back!)
1997 Bulls
1998 Bulls
1999 Spurs The stike shortened season took it's toll on the Bulls, Jordan and coach Jackson would be gone.

Now, the Spurs couldn't repeat, Duncan was out in the playoffs. How they would have faired if he was healthy is pure speculation, but Lakers and Portland were the beasts. Phoenix got their one say so against the Spurs.

2000 Lakers
2001 Lakers
2002 Lakers
2003 Spurs

When the Lakers won in 2000, I had a feeling we could run off a bunch of titles ala Chicago in the 90's. What happened was, the league adjusted to us. Our key role players were leaving us, and it became a Shaq and Kobe show, accounting for most of the offense.

2004 Detroit. Defending champ Spurs out in round 2.
2005 Spurs. This was the closest a team could come to repeating. Detroit lost in game 7 of the finals and Spurs proved to be the better team.
2006 Heat. We know this story, Defending champ Spurs out in round 2 after rallying from a 3-1 series deficit.
2007 Spurs. The champion Heat ousted in first round.
2008 Celtics. Champion Spurs out in the WCF, their second best showing following a title year.

Now, here we are at present. 5 legitimate threats at this point, and all of their stock has both risen and fallen as the season has progressed. Celtics are the defending champs, so they have the easiest path to winning a back-to-back, but failing that whoever does win it this year probably won't find it easy to repeat. Can't count anyone in, can't count anyone out.

Who do you think will be the next team to repeat as NBA champion, and when? I have no clue....thanks for reading. :)

[eisfeld]

First of all I have to go off topic: Kudos for your posts! I really enjoy reading your opinion even though your are a Lakers fan ;)

OT:
It is very hard to tell which team can accomplish a repeat. The NBA is changing too much in a single off-season. Teams are adjusting more quickly to the game of the champs and they are focused to knock them out. Many teams build for quick success like the Heat when they acquired Shaq and then fell apart. That's a fate they will share eventually with the Celtics when their big three decline. But right now, they are the only team which has a shot at repeating. It all depends on this season I guess. If the Lakers win it all this season, they might have a shot the next season.

With players being not as loyal to their teams it's hard to build a dynasty and I'm quite sure we will see a lot of different teams winning it all in the next few seasons. Until the 2010 off-season I can only see the Celtics and eventually the Lakers repeating although I highly doubt it. After 2010 the face of the NBA will be completely different if top-notch players decide to sign with a different team. Till this point it is very hard to predict who's repeating.

[m33p0]

it won't be the celtics, i can tell you that much. every team, even the lowly ones, come out to play the champs. and with this defending champs, the opposition plays even harder most likely because of the arrogance of the celtic players, most notably king douche himself.

in the 80s, it was much easier to keep a championship team together because there was no such thing as a salary cap back then. big market teams could hoard all the talent they need to win and they could keep the core intact. furthermore, back then money wasn't that big a deal for the players. they never asked for too much.

it's quite different nowadays. salary cap plus the unbelievable asking price by a lot of the players (who, more often than not, do not deserve it) makes it near impossible to build a championship team unless you're willing to pay the luxury tax. today's nba player gives a whole new meaning to the term "contractual basis". :lol

[Many PackYao]

The Rockets also won that '95 title as the 6th seed and began all series on the road. People who try to dismiss our titles because Jordan retired blah blah also don't want to hear that the Rockets owned the the original three-peat Bulls lineup of Jordan, Paxson, Cartwright, Grant, Pippen.:wakeup

[timvp]

Easy. Very easy.

[lefty]

It's not hard.

We could have repeated, we simply chose not to. :D

[lil_penny]

Very good post

[JamStone]

There are so many variables that factor into how easy or how hard it could be, and those variables change every season. Obviously a championship team has to be good enough, the core players relatively young enough, the core remain pretty much in tact, and stay injury free the following season. Over and above that, I think it depends on the competition in the league. Timing really plays a great part. The "Bad Boy" Pistons and the Houston Rockets are perfect examples of this. While the Bad Boy Pistons were still a great team in their own right, it helped tremendously that both the core players on both the Lakers and the Celtics were growing old and the Bulls weren't quite ready to win a title when the Pistons repeated. Similarly, the Rockets had great timing to repeat. If Jordan didn't have such a gambling problem and didn't "retire" that first time, the Rockets might have won one of those titles, but it's highly doubtful they win both and repeat like they did.

I think the competition, or how many great championship caliber teams in the league, really determine how easy or hard it is for a championship team to repeat. I think the Spurs probably repeat at some point between 1999-2003 if there was no Shaq-Kobe Lakers.

[Darrin]

I think the 1990s saw too much bad basketball. There was a bunch of thugs in the Pistons that won titles with no running game or complexity to their offense. The Bulls of the early 1990s were really that good and 1993 was probably their best year in terms of balance and attacking with a run. New York and Indiana were great. Houston, Orlando, Utah, Miami--all the teams that contended in the mid-to-late 1990s were football teams.

It required two people to shoulder the offense (Shaq and Kobe the best example), a post-player at point guard to guard against the perimeter contact (Mark Jackson, Tim Hardaway, Gary Payton), the rest was a roster full of bangers (Tyrone Hill, Horace Grant, Charles Oakley, etc) and shooters (Glen Rice, Danny Ferry, Detlef Schrempf, Chris Mullin, Dennis Scott, Steve Kerr, etc).

This is why it was easier to build a re-peat Champion. It takes talent and endurance of the heart to play in this league right now. The regular season appears to mean something. The 'plotting' around the league has decreased in the past five seasons. This coincides with improved shooting percentages, improved scoring, playoff upsets, and an up-tick in point guard productivity. The league's competition committee did a great job.

Last year was the most enjoyment I've had watching basketball.

Who will repeat a Champions? I don't want one. I like a new Champion every year with five or six teams always reaching that plateau, the majority the same contenders from year to year (San Antonio, Dallas, Detroit, LA Lakers, etc).

[Thomas82]

This post is on point.

[djohn2oo8]

Well, its obviously hard for the Mavs to win A title

[BUMP]

We finally beat Dallas, i never thought id see the day:downspin:

[monosylab1k]

It's easy when Jordan retires for a couple years.

[Bob Lanier]

I think the 1990s saw too much bad basketball. ... It takes talent and endurance of the heart to play in this league right now. The regular season appears to mean something. The 'plotting' around the league has decreased in the past five seasons. This coincides with improved shooting percentages, improved scoring, playoff upsets, and an up-tick in point guard productivity. The league's competition committee did a great job.

Last year was the most enjoyment I've had watching basketball.
Well crafted. I can't even tell if you're trolling or not.

[GSH]

Congrats! This late in the season, it's hard to post a serious contender for the "Who Gives A Fuck Post Of The Year Award". But you managed to do it twice in a single post. Posting mindless ramblings about 25 years of NBA Championships was a strong move. But then, posting a link to your own last post on SpursTalk? Genius.

Seriously, do you really think your horseshit is so interesting that everyone will be compelled to go and look for other works by the same author? Even if your profile didn't say it, I would know you were from L.A.

[ambchang]

The league has changed so much in the last 25 years that it really isn't a fair comparison between the dynasties.

Leagues back in the day didn't have salary cap, luxury tax, expansion, European talent, high school talent (less), TV rights, etc ...

From the 70's to the early 80's, teams were easier to retool to fight the champs because cap structures were less complex. With the changes in the cap and the expansion, it was difficult for teams to get good talent from top to bottom in the late 80's/early 90's.

It comes as no surprise that one of the most dominant dynasties in the history of the league, the Bulls, came right after an expansion, and had an another expansion in the middle of it's reign. Having the best player in the league, one of the best coaches in the history of the league, and another top 5 player was tough to match for anybody else. Teams like the Pistons, which depended on depth, was dismantled due to the expansion (and of course age), while the up and coming teams were simply were not able to match up talent wise.

In the 70s and 80s, rich teams like the Knicks, Celtics and Lakers were simply able to load up on a ridiculous amount of talent to offset one or two dominant players (Dr. J, Wilt Chamberlain), the rules prevents this from the late 80's onwards.

Finally, small market teams are still at a disadvantage, as establish stars, who can get the max deals anywhere they go, would prefer to go to big markets for endorsement opportunities.

[sook]

Tehcnically whoever won the title the year after Jordan retired (LA or SA) wouldn't have won it if Jordan was in the league too.

[Bob Lanier]

Really? The Wizards would have won the championship?

Or are you saying that Jordan alone, after every one of the Bulls' top ten players except Kukoc, Ron Harper, and Randy Brown had left, would have?