How to Win a Championship (since ~1990)

[Sun Scorched]

Good stuff, DRK. Pretty tough to argue with your list. I guess I'd add that that wing you're talking about definitely overlaps significantly with a couple of mine:
--Stretch big. Offensive wing, but defensive 4 or 5. Horry and Odom for sure, but others as well (such as 3s that also play the 4 in small-ball).
--Defensive frontcourt. I mean 3, 4, and 5, although I think the 4 and especially the 5 are generally most important. 5>4>3. For example, Bill Russell can make a defense elite by himself, but an elite 3-4 combo like Pippen/Rodman can make up for a mediocre 5.

My mistake. I read "Defensive frontcourt" as meaning only the two Big men.

I think the most interesting thing about your findings here Los Soles, is that hardly any of those teams actually had an excellent Point Guard. So, is it VERY possible for a team to win a championship without a great pass-first all star point guard. People always say "the point guard is the most important player on the team," but this thread has turned that fact into a "myth."


Again, during the last 20 years lets have a look at the point guards that have starter for each of their teams.

2011 - Dallas Mavericks def. Miami Heat 4-2
Point Guard: Jason Kidd
2010 - Los Angeles Lakers def. Boston Celtic 4-3
Point Guard: Derek Fisher
2009 - Los Angeles Lakers def. Orlando Magic 4-1
Point Guard: Derek Fisher
2008 - Boston Celtics def. Los Angeles Lakers 4-2
Point Guard: Rajan Rondo
2007 - San Antonio Spurs def. Cleveland Cavaliers 4-0
Point Guard: Tony Parker
2006 - Miami Heat def. Dallas Mavericks 4-2
Point Guard: Jason Williams
2005 - San Antonio Spurs def. Detroit Pistons 4-3
Point Guard: Tony Parker
2004 - Detroit Pistons def. Los Angeles Lakers 4-1
Point Guard: Chancey Billups
2003 - San Antonio Spurs def. New Jersey Nets 4-2
Point Guard: Tony Parker
2002 - Los Angeles Lakers def. New Jersey Nets 4-0
Point Guard: Derek Fisher
2001 - Los Angeles Lakers def. Philadelphia 76ers 4-1
Point Guard:: Derek Fisher
2000 - Los Angeles Lakers def. Indiana Pacers 4-2
Point Guard: Fox/Bryant/Fisher
1999 - San Antonio Spurs def. New York Knicks 4-1
Point Guard: Avery Johnson
1998 - Chicago Bulls def. Utah Jazz 4-2
Point Guard: Ron Harper/MJ?
1997 - Chicago Bulls def. Utah Jazz 4-2
Point Guard: Ron Harper/MJ?
1996 - Chicago Bulls def. Seattle SuperSonics 4-2
Point Guard: Ron Harper/MJ?
1995 - Houston Rockets def. Orlando Magic 4-0
Point Guard: Kenny Smith
1994 - Houston Rockets def. New York Knicks 4-3
Point Guard: Kenny Smith
1993 - Chicago Bulls def. Phoenix Suns 4-2
Point Guard: BJ Armstrong
1992 - Chicago Bulls def. Portland Trail Blazers 4-2
Point Guard: John Paxton
1991 - Chicago Bulls def. Los Angeles Lakers 4-1
Point Guard: John Paxton
1990 - Detroit Pistons def. Portland Trail Blazers 4-1
Point Guard: Joe Dumars


I have to say, although there are some good point guards, none of them (with the exception of Dumars and Rondo) were playing at all All Star Level at the time.

My original hypothesis was that a team does not need to have a great pass first point guard to be successful in the quest of winning a championship. This has been proved correct. Yes, players such as Tony Parker played a pivitol role in their team's success, but in my opinion, he is not a true pass first point guard.

I agree with this, ESPN also showed a few times I believe the chart of having a "superstar" or "all-star" point guard who has won a championship ring... and no superstar PG since Isaiah Thomas lead his team to the championship. Tony Parker was an all-star but EVERYONE knew it was Duncan's team and Parker was more of a semi-star type of player, Billups also, same level as Parker when they won in 2004, but very efficient indeed.


Hence, again, I believe the Suns can sacrifice a "star" PG for a "star" Scorer/BIG anyday, or atleast a chance to obtain those players.

11 of those teams ran the triangle under Phil Jackson, so while accurate that they lacked a "star" PG, it's more a product of the system that they didn't need a good PG. Also, those teams either had Jordan or Kobe on them and they handled the ball almost as, if not more, frequetly than the designated PG did.

[Wannabe MEP]

Hence, again, I believe the Suns can sacrifice a "star" PG for a "star" Scorer/BIG anyday, or atleast a chance to obtain those players.

Look, this is really not complicated. Let me explain this again.

There are two major parts to basketball: OFFENSE and DEFENSE. Got it? With Nash, THE SUNS OFFENSE HAS ALWAYS BEEN GOOD ENOUGH TO WIN A CHAMPIONSHIP. IN FACT, IT'S PRETTY MUCH ALWAYS BEEN BETTER THAN THE OFFENSE OF THE TEAM THAT ACTUALLY WON THE CHAMPIONSHIP (usually, it's not even close). I don't see how that's even a discussion topic. That's even true for this past season, when we had no consistency, no chemistry, and a depleted frontcourt that we filled with sh*tty players. The Suns problem was and is DEFENSE. Is that clear? There is absolutely no reason to believe that our offense won't be good enough to win a championship next year if we still have Nash. It will be.

Offensive Efficiency of all teams in the 2010 playoffs (guess who's f*cking destroying the field??):
114.1
111.5
110.9
109.5
109.1
106.0
104.1
103.6
102.5
101.9
101.6
101.6
100.5
100.3
96.4
93.4

video game numbers. absolutely ridiculous. but the defense wasn't good enough.

2010-2011 unadjusted offensive rating:
Steve Nash 113.94 > Dirk Nowitzki 113.00

Top players offensive value (multi-year RAPM through 2011):
1. Steve Nash +8.2
2. Dwyane Wade +6.4
3. Dirk Nowitzki +5.9

Nash is still the most valuable offensive player in the league.

With Nash + stretch-bigs like Frye, we already have the offensive punch that we need. The question is whether we have the defensive muscle. AND THAT MEANS SPENDING MONEY ON THE DEFENSIVE FRONTCOURT, not deconstructing our still existing offensive juggernaut by trading Nash. (ps, great defenders cost pennies compared to scorers, because GMs are stupid)

Again, Dallas acquired Tyson Chandler, Brendan Haywood, and Shawn Marion to solidify their defensive frontcourt. Then they won a championship. Their offense was slightly better than the year before, but otherwise worse than it had been since 2000-2001.

They won a championship, not because they traded their aging "star" for a scorer, nor because they acquired new star players, but because they found frontcourt role players who play great DEFENSE.

[thamadkant]

^^

Obviously, you havent factored in, that BACK in the D'Antoni days, he wouldnt play ANYONE who cant score or shoot...

How do you exactly put a defensive big man in that line up when the coach doesnt want one.



The problem with the Suns... is there offense has always been cranked to 11/10....

But failed to get stops defensively..

the closest one was Kurt Thomas... but he got injured.... then he also was looked upon as a "liability" the next season so he was traded away.....



and using Nash's stats as a efficient scorer/offense source is MOOT, because I already said Nash can SCORE 40 points given enough looks and shots... but the team becomes more beatable that way.

Mavs have a terrific defensive team... Chandler, Marion, Haywood, Kidd, Stevenson....Butler....

Suns have 3 above average defenders.... Gortat, Hill, Dudley....

and a BIG man who can score 30 points inside, outside, etc is very very advantageous over a high scoring PG anyday.... you should know this.

[Wannabe MEP]

Obviously, you havent factored in, that BACK in the D'Antoni days, he wouldnt play ANYONE who cant score or shoot...

How is that relevant to this discussion? He's no longer the coach.

The problem with the Suns... is there offense has always been cranked to 11/10....

But failed to get stops defensively..

100% agreement.

and using Nash's stats as a efficient scorer/offense source is MOOT, because I already said Nash can SCORE 40 points given enough looks and shots... but the team becomes more beatable that way.

False. Nash is unbelievably effective on offense precisely because he takes what the defense gives, and we're incredibly efficient in every case, because dunks, open threes, and open shots for Nash are all incredibly efficient. As long as Nash has been in Phoenix, we've never been "beatable" because of our offense. Our defense is the problem, as you said above.

Mavs have a terrific defensive team... Chandler, Marion, Haywood, Kidd, Stevenson....Butler....

The Mavs took a team like ours--great offense, not enough D--and kept the most important offensive pieces that don't sink the defense (Nowitzki and Terry) while upgrading with ROLE PLAYERS WHO PLAY GOOD DEFENSE. That's basically my whole point: we should imitate Dallas. Like Dallas, we already have the offensive cornerstones; now we need to upgrade the defense, especially in the frontcourt.

Amare sunk our defense, so he had to go. Thing is, we're incredibly efficient offensively even without him because we still have Nash, especially with a stretch big and other shooters like Dudley.

My point, and where you and I have been in disagreement, is that I don't think we need to trade Nash and start over. We're not going to get better offensively doing that, and we don't need to get better offensively anyway. We just need to maintain offensively, and improve the defense. The way to improve the defense is to improve the defensive frontcourt, and we may only be one player (power forward) away from doing so.

[JohnVancouver]

Absolutely right - and the truth is, with proper management, this is a contending team - juts a few canny moves away

No lie, fact

[GrantHill]

Sorry but how do you want to aquire some solid roleplayers, if we don't have any trade assets? Instead we've got an owner who doesn't want to use our TPE? Looks like neither Pietrus nor VC is going to be traded and that's our biggest problem. We want to keep flexibility for 2012, but then who knows? Is Nash going to join a contender? If not will he still play on his level? With Sarver as our owner, we won't get some new players who can change our team defensive.

[Wannabe MEP]

GH--I think it's only one player, an athletic pf, and perhaps not an expensive one. I like Gortat, Frye, and our options at small forward. Markieff seems promising as well. The only missing piece is Lou 2.0 to pair with Frye. My dream scenario is Josh Smith or Thaddeus Young, but you're right there: it's not going to happen. Otherwise, I wanted Faried in the draft (but Markieff made sense, too). It's possible that Lawal will fill that role perfectly, but that's a huge question mark.

But these types of players are undervalued: Lou, for example. I think we could find one on the cheap that's in between Lou and Thaddeus Young-level.

MLE? Make a play for Lou? Or just give Lawal the minutes?

[JohnVancouver]

GH--I think it's only one player, an athletic pf, and perhaps not an expensive one. I like Gortat, Frye, and our options at small forward. Markieff seems promising as well. The only missing piece is Lou 2.0 to pair with Frye. My dream scenario is Josh Smith or Thaddeus Young, but you're right there: it's not going to happen. Otherwise, I wanted Faried in the draft (but Markieff made sense, too). It's possible that Lawal will fill that role perfectly, but that's a huge question mark.

But these types of players are undervalued: Lou, for example. I think we could find one on the cheap that's in between Lou and Thaddeus Young-level.

MLE? Make a play for Lou? Or just give Lawal the minutes?

I'd love to see Lou back here but Lawal has the same kind of super hustle - but he's not a center, and Lou is, though he's efective at the four outside his lack of a shot. Frye, Lou and MP is a not bad front line, good variety of skills, decent defense.

I just wonder if Lou was partly the product of a special moment and lineup, and would he be the same guy for us again, with a different squad.

Gortat/SWilliams and Lou or Siler ...

[Wannabe MEP]

I'd love to see Lou back here but Lawal has the same kind of super hustle - but he's not a center, and Lou is, though he's efective at the four outside his lack of a shot. Frye, Lou and MP is a not bad front line, good variety of skills, decent defense.

I don't think of Lou as a 5, but regardless of label: Lou is perfect next to Frye, with Frye in the paint on defense, and Lou in the paint on offense. I would LOVE to see Lawal playing just like Lou, but I just have no idea.

I just wonder if Lou was partly the product of a special moment and lineup, and would he be the same guy for us again, with a different squad.

I am extremely confident that the magic was primarily the Lou-Frye pairing (Dudley was important as well, but we have other options at the three that would be similarly effective).

2010 Regular season, 25 minute min.
Dragic - Hill - Dudley - Amundson - Frye 13.53
Dragic - Barbosa - Dudley - Amundson - Frye 14.32
Dragic - Richardson - Dudley - Amundson - Frye 0.68
Dragic - Barbosa - Hill - Dudley - Amundson 31.10
Dragic - Dudley - Clark - Amundson - Frye -2.29
Nash - Richardson - Dudley - Amundson - Frye 7.43

Dragic - Barbosa - Dudley - Stoudemire - Amundson -0.27
Nash - Richardson - Hill - Stoudemire - Amundson -3.20
Dragic - Barbosa - Dudley - Clark - Amundson 5.77
Nash - Richardson - Dudley - Stoudemire - Amundson 5.61
Dragic - Richardson - Dudley - Stoudemire - Amundson -5.28
Dragic - Hill - Dudley - Stoudemire - Amundson -1.96

2010 Playoffs, 10 minute min.
Dragic - Barbosa - Dudley - Amundson - Frye 15.66
Dragic - Barbosa - Hill - Dudley - Amundson 19.55

Dragic - Barbosa - Dudley - Stoudemire - Amundson 0.00
Nash - Richardson - Hill - Stoudemire - Amundson 5.79

Lou was effective in several different lineups...but he had to be paired with a stretch big. I believed that the formula for reproducing that 2010 magic is simple:
______, ______, Dudley, Lou, Frye
(Brooks or Nash at the one are fine, and Childress, Pietrus, and Hill all would work at the two or three)

[JohnVancouver]

I'm all for it if we can somehow get the team back to what it was year before last - best we've been since SSOL

[NashtyNas]

Josh Smith is a pipedream at this point, and Thaddeus Young is not what we want. He's average at best defensively, and more a tweener F, fit for the 6th man role rather than starting. Smith fit's the bill to a T, but we just don't have the assets to make a move for him unless we decide to move Gortat, which won't happen.

At this point, I'd leave a standing offer of Smith for Lopez/Pietrus/Morris on the table for the Hawks, in case he asks out and/or Horford just absolutely needs to move to PF. That's a decent offer, but I'm sure teams like Houston/NJ/OKC would outbid us in a hurry.

Depending on the CBA, I'd like to see what Philly wants to do. If the CBA makes them want to dump salaries (huge possibility) then I'd be more than willing to give them VC + Morris + Lopez for Brand + Meeks + 1st.

Nash/Brooks
Dudley/Meeks
Chill/Pietrus
Brand/Lawal
Gortat/Frye

+ our 2012 pick, and theirs have us set to go if we need to rebuild (ie. Nash leaves after the season).

[Wannabe MEP]

Josh Smith is a pipedream at this point, and Thaddeus Young is not what we want. He's average at best defensively, and more a tweener F, fit for the 6th man role rather than starting. Smith fit's the bill to a T, but we just don't have the assets to make a move for him unless we decide to move Gortat, which won't happen.

1) I'd trade Gortat for Smith. That would be really, really painful, but Smith is just too perfect. This is my dream lineup:
Nash-______-Dudley-Smoove-Frye (I'm fine with Hill, Pietrus, or Childress on the wing with Dudley)

2) Thaddeus Young is "average at best defensively"?!? What makes you think that?

3) If we acquire an athletic PF like Young, I'm talking about this type of frontcourt:
Markieff-Gortat
Thaddeus-Frye
(I don't care who starts and who comes off the bench: I think it depends on matchups.)

The idea is that we always have a stretch big on the floor, and then a roll man who makes sense beside him. Because of the incredible success we had with Lou-Frye, I think it makes sense to put Frye next to quickness.

I like Frye-Gortat sometimes, but I just don't think that lineup has the quickness to defend some frontcourts.