What is a Super Team?

[Joker]

Nobody ever called Shaq-Kobe or Jordan-Pippen's teams Superteams. Perhaps they called the 2003-2004 lakers with Malone/Payton a superteam, but not the 99-03 Lakers.

Like, nobody called Durant-Westbrook in OKC a superteam, but it would be weird if 20 years from now, people in hindsight started calling them that.

[Joker]

I'd say a superteam is a team that is set up for immediate title contention/accelerated title odds through significant star talent acquisition, a la the 2007-2008 Celtics or the 2010-2011 Heat. That's why the Jordan-Pippen Bulls don't really qualify or the Shaq-Kobe Lakers, as they had to through a few years of organic growth and earlier round exits before contending. Yes, the Heat lost their first year, but they were up in the finals and favorited to win that series, and most people assumed they would win the title in 2011 at the outset of that season.

In this sense, it's hard for me to call the 2015 warriors a superteam, but the 2017 warriors certainly have that feel.

[The Penguin]

A no doubt top 5 player + 2 perennial all star / Team USA type talents + a couple of very good role players.

How a team acquired guys is completely irrelevant.

The Warriors and Cavs are absolutely super teams IMO.

[Joker]

You also have to think about the era and the expectations around the number of stars/superstars a team would have. In the 90's, for example, having two superstars was not uncommon --- Kemp/Payton, Jordan/Pippen, Stockton/Malone, Shaq/Penny, Duncan/Robinson, etc. But having 3 star players of that caliber was rare, and would more so create the feel of "super" team, in the sense of it being extraordinary for a team.

[Joker]

With Glen Rice joining Shaq-Kobe, did people classify that as a superteam? Can't recall. Rice has become the afterthought of the Shaq-Kobe era. He put up 16 ppg for the 99-00 season -- I suppose not enough to elevate him to be considered as part of a Big 3. Plus he had no big playoff moments that I can recall.

[Heat3]

You also have to think about the era and the expectations around the number of stars/superstars a team would have. In the 90's, for example, having two superstars was not uncommon --- Kemp/Payton, Jordan/Pippen, Stockton/Malone, Shaq/Penny, Duncan/Robinson, etc. But having 3 star players of that caliber was rare, and would more so create the feel of "super" team, in the sense of it being extraordinary for a team.

The Bulls 2nd 3 peat had an air of super team about them for that time. Pippen's stature had grown and was named to the Top 50 players of all time list. Rodman had joined them. Even then, he wasn't a super star. He was older and more of a specialist by then. The first 3peat was more Jordan's team with Pippen as his side kick and some good role players.

[Joker]

You also have to think about the era and the expectations around the number of stars/superstars a team would have. In the 90's, for example, having two superstars was not uncommon --- Kemp/Payton, Jordan/Pippen, Stockton/Malone, Shaq/Penny, Duncan/Robinson, etc. But having 3 star players of that caliber was rare, and would more so create the feel of "super" team, in the sense of it being extraordinary for a team.

The Bulls 2nd 3 peat had an air of super team about them for that time. Pippen's stature had grown and was named to the Top 50 players of all time list. Rodman had joined them. Even then, he wasn't a super star. He was older and more of a specialist by then. The first 3peat was more Jordan's team with Pippen as his side kick and some good role players.

I don't recall such an aura of superteam around the bulls 2nd 3-peat. Definitely an aura of a dynasty, of an historically great team with all-timer players, but not "super team" per se. The fact Pippen and Jordan had been drafted by the Bulls and had already been with the team for 9-11 years by that point gave the team an air of a continuing dynasty, more than anything.

[MartinToVaught]

With Glen Rice joining Shaq-Kobe, did people classify that as a superteam? Can't recall. Rice has become the afterthought of the Shaq-Kobe era. He put up 16 ppg for the 99-00 season -- I suppose not enough to elevate him to be considered as part of a Big 3. Plus he had no big playoff moments that I can recall.

Rice's most memorable moment in LA arguably came in a Clipper uniform.



http://www.espn.co.uk/nba/recap?gameId=231210012

[whysoserious]

[*]The same in the above goes for LeBron. They had high top end talent but not enough if LeBron wasn't present. In Miami they had a really shallow bench and in Cavs neither Kyrie nor Love lead the team even decently well without LeBron. The bench is similarly not strong.

By this logic, would the Bulls be as successful as they were without Jordan. That Miami team with 3 HOF players, 3 AS all under the age of 29 is a superteam. Sure there was a signficant drop off after the big three but that team was built to be a superteam. The fact they lost two finals doesn't mean anything.

[BigtimeNBAfan]

The super team definition has been used to describe "player created" teams like Miami and Golden State by recruiting Durant.

It is really used as another thing to bash Lebron over. Sorry, some players play for teams that are poorly managed and unable to get superstars around them. I fully admit I'm a Lebron fan, but had he stayed in Cleveland with the management he had in 2010 he likely never wins a title unless eventually another superstar decides to join him. He certainly wasn't going to beat an OKC team with their mvp trio in 2012, the Spurs the following year, or a 73 win team in Golden State in 2016. With the talent he was given, he needed to leave in order to compete for titles. Obviously Magic Johnson, Larry Bird and others didn't need to leave their teams because they played on loaded rosters with multiple hall of fame teammates. If the 80's Lakers and Celtics weren't super teams there is no such thing as a super team.

[jamalkandur]

More importantly, what is a team anyway? Yeah, after 178 threads and gazillion posts we've arrived that territories.

[RingsDontLie]

The Cavs and Warriors today are superteams. Lakers in 2019 are a super team

[Duke4life831]

I dont care what the parameters are, ^^^that's a super team.

Haha the amount of talent in that pic is just disturbing.

[LeBird]

[*]The same in the above goes for LeBron. They had high top end talent but not enough if LeBron wasn't present. In Miami they had a really shallow bench and in Cavs neither Kyrie nor Love lead the team even decently well without LeBron. The bench is similarly not strong.

By this logic, would the Bulls be as successful as they were without Jordan. That Miami team with 3 HOF players, 3 AS all under the age of 29 is a superteam. Sure there was a signficant drop off after the big three but that team was built to be a superteam. The fact they lost two finals doesn't mean anything.

I think the point of my definition was to address the Super Team argument when it comes to talking about the lead and co-lead players responsible for the wins.

For example, I don't call those Lakers teams Super Teams because Malone et al also came but because if you remove either Kobe or Shaq, there is still enough there to challenge. I guess I didn't define challenge clear enough: I would say a team that at least makes the playoffs and looks like they can contend - even if it doesn't make them a top contender. It is based on such a team where an ATG player (particularly a top 10 player) tends to elevate these teams to championship teams and perennial finalists. Look at the teams I named, all up there and not just for a year or so.

Basketball is a team game but it is also a game where a single individual can have inordinate amount of importance to success - unlike a sport like football/soccer because the team has even more individuals and is played on a plane where there is less impact by a single player simply because he can't be everywhere at once.

So to answer your question: a Bulls team that loses Jordan and adds Pete Myers and, etc, is a team challenging without a lead player. I wasn't sure to include the Miami team of 2011 to 2012 (essentially, before Wade went on his descension) and the reason I didn't is because I do not think they challenge without LeBron. I'm actually pretty sure of it. The reason that team went so far was because of the Big 3 but LeBron did so much heavy lifting because of the appalling bench - it was a seriously top-heavy team, I don't think Bosh and Wade themselves could have made the difference. While the sample is not ideal, it does show that they in fact couldn't when LeBron did leave.

[Mylie10]

Rose, Melo, Porzingas, Noah? Are you kidding me? Phil Jackson's a genius!

[iQon]

A no doubt top 5 player + 2 perennial all star / Team USA type talents + a couple of very good role players.

How a team acquired guys is completely irrelevant.

The Warriors and Cavs are absolutely super teams IMO.

+1.

It's laughable that people argue the Cavs aren't a super team. They're insanely deep. How fast we forget that they were an Avery Bradley 3 away from possibly entering the Finals undefeated.

Their playoff runs were historical.

[Mylie10]

My definition of a Super team would be if the team you are discussion can legitimately be in the convo of the best teams of All Time. There's a list, and almost everyone knows who they are.

[metafisical]

I don't know why people refer to the current Warriors and 2010-14 Heat as Super Teams. Those teams had some decent players (e.g., James, Durant, Wade, Curry). I say those teams were "good teams", just like how the Jordan Bulls teams were alright as well.

[LeBird]

In most people's mind its only a team that is built through FA, usually it means acquiring 2-3 top 20 players before the age of 30.

Most people do not consider 2008 Boston a super team, because they were all past their prime/over 30. Most people consider Cleveland a super team because Lebron was acquire in FA and Kyrie/Love/Lebron were all under 30 in 2014.

Supertem doesn't have anything to do with the quality of team or results, simply the act of building a roster in FA with top level talent.

In most peoples mind'? I'm not so sure. I simply do not care if a team was constructed via FA or traded - either way a team is being manufactured to benefit the lead and co-lead player(s).

It's irrelevant to whether such a team was a Super Team for my definition and discussion. I care about the impact of the individual - as that is the context these things get brought up - and how strong they were in comparison to their era and others.

A team that is only names but no performance is not a Super Team because it is already failing the first hurdle of the definition. If with all the talent it doesn't challenge, then what is the point of asking the question of whether said team would still challenge if the lead/co-lead players left the team or not?

[whysoserious]

I think the point of my definition was to address the Super Team argument when it comes to talking about the lead and co-lead players responsible for the wins.

For example, I don't call those Lakers teams Super Teams because Malone et al also came but because if you remove either Kobe or Shaq, there is still enough there to challenge. I guess I didn't define challenge clear enough: I would say a team that at least makes the playoffs and looks like they can contend - even if it doesn't make them a top contender. It is based on such a team where an ATG player (particularly a top 10 player) tends to elevate these teams to championship teams and perennial finalists. Look at the teams I named, all up there and not just for a year or so.

Basketball is a team game but it is also a game where a single individual can have inordinate amount of importance to success - unlike a sport like football/soccer because the team has even more individuals and is played on a plane where there is less impact by a single player simply because he can't be everywhere at once.

A Wade/Bosh duo at that time (prior to Wades injuries catching up) would have been a top team in the east and we don't know what else they could have added without Lebron to compete for a title. That team is a team designed to dominate with a trio of HOFers.

The year before the trio came together, they still won 47 games even though they were trying to clear all the salaries for signing those guys.