Do All NBA teams Have the Make-Up To Win A NBA Championship?

[nfg3]

Obviously the answer to the question is No but it is an interesting article about how to win NBA titles. This one focuses on Boston's chance to win in the near future and brought up some interesting facts concernig a team's chance to actually win one.

I've never seen it explained quite exactly this way. Nice article.

http://celtics.realgm.com/articles/344/20070802/a_calculated_risk_based_upon_the_iron_law_of_nba_c hampionships/

[JMarkJohns]

I know that when the Suns need to glammed up, they use Rimmel... Nash says that the "London look" is in right now. That's the make up the Suns have typically...

[lil'mo]

hahaha, that was a really dumb article.
i bet it gives celtics fans a nice warm feeling inside, though.

[JamStone]

Iron law my ass. 2004 Detroit Pistons. Chauncey Billups was the best player on that team. And, even if you argue it was Rip or Ben, none of those three were even close to being one of the 5 best players in the league. None were even a top 25 player in the league. Forget where any of them stand historically.

[smrattler]

I did not like that article.

[Roxsfan]

interesting, Iron law qutoes will run rampant here now. :smokin

[MrChug]

I'd love someone to comment on my outlook.

READ (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1953192#post1953192)

[exstatic]

:lmao @KG leading a team anywhere but nowhere. If the Celtics were in the West, they'd be a first round out. Oh, and KG's prime ended about 3 years ago. He's got more miles than Duncan, and relies WAY more on his athleticism.

This guy tried WAY too hard to sell this Celtics team. Ray Allen has NEVER even sniffed at being a top 10 player.

[nfg3]

I'd love someone to comment on my outlook.

READ (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1953192#post1953192)

Good points -I've felt and said similar things about KG, also. He's too soft down low and shys away from taking the "BIG' shot when the game is on the line in the 4th Q. But his posturing about being a team player when he helped strip them of much of their available cap space with that outrageous contract is telling. The Wolves have never really been able to go after the big FA's due to that contract. Regardless of the preceived market value at the time he came across to me as a "me first" type individual.

Though I admit the author ewas hyping the Celtic's chances for a title the key to Boston's success will be the support group that the FO puts together to back up their "Big 3". If mediocre then the Celtics are doomed to more frustration.

[Reggie Miller]

This article seems to derive from a similar Dave Berri post on the Wages of Wins:

http://dberri.wordpress.com/2007/08/05/the-super-star-theory-or-how-to-win-an-nba-title/


Interestingly enough, the Spurs actually "prove" several cliches in addition to "dominant big men win titles." Others include: "It's a game of five on five, not one on one" and "Defense wins championships."

The Celtics have the true superstar, Garnett, and two other star players in Pierce and Allen. However, turning to the other "truisms," we see a different picture. Is KG a dominant big? Maybe, but not in the traditional sense of a low post presence. Will the Celtics be able to field five average to above-average players on the court at all times? (Boston would be wise to study how the Spurs have built their rotation around Ginobili.) I'm not sure if they even have 12 players signed right now. As others have mentioned on other threads, this Boston team has only one player with any sort of defensive reputation, and Garnett's defense is not what it could be/could have been.

Boston will make the playoffs. Boston will be interesting for the first time in many years. Certain statistics indicate that Boston' chances of winning a title have increased considerably.

However, the "superstar factor" ignores certain hard cold facts. It's a zero sum game. Shaq or Duncan won eight of the last nine championships. Restated, both Shaq and Duncan did not win five of the last nine championships, since they have never played for the same franchise. Similarly, Chamberlain wasn't winning too many titles during Boston's domination of the league. Having an all-time caliber player may be a necessary condition for winning it all, but it is not a sufficient condition. In other words, KG may make it possible for Boston to win the title, but he does not guarantee a title. I guess that's pretty obvious, but neither article really addresses that issue.

[Reggie Miller]

I forgot to make the point that made me log on in the first place. Statistically, the Berri article is quite compelling.

There is no parity in the NBA, nor has there ever been. The handful of teams with one or more true "superstars" win titles; other teams do not. One need not resort to APBR metrics to prove this. As Berri points out, simple math shows that the Celtics, Lakers, Pistons, Bulls, and Spurs account for over 80% of the NBA titles awarded to date. (IIRC, the Celtics and Lakers account for over half themselves.)

Even the classic "exception," the 2004 Pistons, also fits the mold. According to the win shares formula, Ben Wallace was a dominant player in 2004, putting up a WP48 comparable to Shaq and Duncan that year.

At any rate, Berri is always worth reading, even if you don't buy into the win shares formula. Actually, I don't think that WS or WP48 (wins produced per 48 minutes) or their related stats (such as position-adjusted win share) accurately model the very best and very worst defenders. In other words, an individual player's WS seems to reflect his actual contributions, so long as he is about average on defense.

Turning to someone like Bowen, it is pretty obvious that WS fails. Bruce is rarely among the Spurs' top five in WS, even for individual games. This defies logic and the evidence of our eyes. There is no doubt in my mind that Bowen was the most important factor in the Spurs' victory in game 3 of the 2007 Finals, just for example. The WS formula does not accurately model this phemonenon.

Similarly, truly awful defenders seem to get a pass. For example, Vince Carter is usually the second or third best Net according to WS. (Kidd is invariably first, of course.) It would be a terrible insult to bullfighters all over the globe to refer to Carter's style as "matador defense." It's more like "wishful thinking" or "spectator defense." Actually, quite a few of the current Nets' players are conscientious objectors on defense, so maybe it's not so far wrong after all.