RealGM

Here I collected stats of last 5 NBA champions (regular season and playoffs). I thought it could be interesting topic to discussion. Sorry for long links, I don't know how to shorten them.

2015 Warriors


2014 Spurs


2013 Heat


2012 Heat


2011 Mavericks


My amateur conclusion
Looking at the most important players on these teams they could be grouped in few categories:

Offensive superstar:
W Curry, Thompson
S Parker (?)
H James, Wade
M Nowitzki

DPOY candidate big man:
W Bogut, Green
S Duncan
H -
M Chandler

DPOY candidate wing:
W Iguodala, Green again
S Leonard
H James
M Marion

6th man guard:
W Iguodala
S Ginobili
H Allen
M Terry

Shooting high iq big man:
W Green
S Diaw
H Bosh
M Nowitzki

Miami Heat are unique because they win it all with weak centers (but they were very strong at sg, sf and pf).
Spurs win without true offensive superstar, nobody was scoring above 18 points per game. But they worked amazing as a team and had great defence so they didn't needed one.

Who do you think from the Suns roster could fill those spots in few years?

Offensive superstar - Bledsoe and Knight can put 20+ ppg, Booker and Warren will be probably able to do the same in near future. But I see all of them more like 2nd or 3rd scorer on really good team. Don't think any of them could be 1st option, unless it's on team like the Spurs.

DPOY candidate big man - Suns has Chandler who won DPOY award and the championship. They also have Len who has potential to be DPOY level center in the future. But for some reason they both looks bad on defence this season. Let's hope Suns staff can repair Chandler and/or Chandler can teach Len how to be great defender.

DPOY candidate wing - Suns don't have anybody like that.

6th man guard - Knight could fulfill this role if he will improve his decision making.

Shooting high iq big man - Suns don't have one. Maybe Bender could be this guy if he will achieve his potential. Or Simmons if he will learn to shoot.

Imo Suns should concentrate on finding this 5 type of players. That's why I'm more excited about drafting Simmons, Bender, Brown or Ingram (great defensive potential) than another point/combo guard.

Generally I have the feeling that guard posions are less important than wings and centers (unless you offensive superstar is a guard). And of course Suns are the strongest at guards

For future, or if you want to edit, whenever you run something like that, it gives you an option to make tiny url....the first one I opened had that option right at the top.

I think it's getting an MVP candidate player and 2 other All-Stars.

Then you can mix and match the rest from there for team balance.

Three things come to my mind when building a champion. First is having a top ten defense at the minimum, preferably top five or better. Second is having an offensive player that absolutely cannot be stopped. Every champion has that. Whether it is the league MVP or an MVP caliber player. The only team I can think of that ever won a champion without one of those completely unstoppable offensive players is the 2004 Pistons.

The third thing that I think of is basketball IQ. No way can you win a championship with stupid players. Unfortunately the Suns have been riddled with low IQ players for the past several seasons and still have a few.

I do like Watson playing Len and Chandler together and think that can be a winning formula. I would never recommend following Golden State's blueprint. That offense works because they have the greatest shooting backcourt in league history. It is not even close. No point in trying to duplicate what they do if Curry is not on your team. Winning a championship with a dominant big man is a proven way to go and that is what the Suns are trying to do now imo.

I agree with you except that I'm not sure if 2 centers lineup is what the long term solution.

Len is not a DPOY caliber center IMO, lets see him making an All-NBA Defensive team first before prematurely showering him with these accolades. Not hating just saying it like it is. The twin towers front court would have to be stifling enough to compensate for its offensive deficiencies, there aren't many old school bangers like ZBo left in the league, nobody is losing sleep over them. It won't work against perimeter oriented teams with good spacing/ Stretch 4s who are pick n' pop threats, that would require switching onto guards with the ability to hedge the screener and rotate over weakside to cut off the driver

Len needs to become Bogut-like atleast.

But Bogut is what he is because he has incredibly high defensive and offensive IQ. Watching him anticipate moves both sides of the court shows how smart he is, only his body's injury history and lack of explosiveness that stopped him from being a dominant center.... but in his prime was arguably as good if not just a slight behind Dwight Howard defensively.


Bogut really helps Warriors in the playoffs and against big teams.... Len needs to become Bogut-like.... first step is to study him.

How can the Suns ever win a championship when teams like Spurs, Lakers, Warriors, Bulls, Heat, and Celtics exist? having a top 5 winning regular season % and only making the finals twice in the past 45 years is just unacceptable.

I think the ideal mix is having smart guys that play hard and have the ceiling, plus they fit with each other to evolve and make your team evolve into that direction.
In that sense Booker, Len and Warren seem like keepers, Bledsoe could be, I still like him a ton but his health is iffy, Bogdan definetely is interesting and guys like Leuer or Mirza are always useful, but it is still early, since they typically 9th-10th guys in those type of teams and the ideal thing will be getting your top8 guys.

I think even if you draft high you need to consider not only BPA but how the player make sense to your team and system, the Suns need a coach fast and an idea of how they want to play.

Hopefully you have 5 guys already, the thing is getting it right in the Draft and dedicating all your budget and strengths to player development.

FA is nice and all that, but this summer is an awful class and a terrible time to spend, the Suns should be in collecting assets mode and getting salary dumps from other team in exchange of picks and prospects to try.

I think you can get some things for Knight, Chandler and Tucker this summer.

A bit of a digression, but I don't think there is such thing as a "winning formula". Basketball evolves over time, and every now and then a team changes the approach to the game and the whole league needs to adapt.

I, personally, am more favorable to having a team with an identity, which represents it's history and garners the respect of its community and fanbase, and tries to be competitive with that.

The Warriors, for example, are becoming champions by replicating (and improving) a system created by the Suns. Run N Gun and SSOL used to be our trademarks.

I wish we could stick to it. Draft and trade for players aiming to continue that system.

It demands a change of attitude, though. You would draft based on fit, rather than BPA. You would not build a team around a superstar. You would not try to emulate other teams formulas and always be a step behind and almost get it just to see someone else do something totally different to win it all.

You would basically do something you believe in, shaping and adjusting it to perfection til you get a ring out of it.

Problem is we are lacking a team philosophy/system to buy into, so only a transcendent talent can elevate us into contention overnight. Gotta lay down the foundation or else it will all come tumbling down yet again

MathiasPW wrote:A bit of a digression, but I don't think there is such thing as a "winning formula". Basketball evolves over time, and every now and then a team changes the approach to the game and the whole league needs to adapt.

I, personally, am more favorable to having a team with an identity, which represents it's history and garners the respect of its community and fanbase, and tries to be competitive with that.

The Warriors, for example, are becoming champions by replicating (and improving) a system created by the Suns. Run N Gun and SSOL used to be our trademarks.

I wish we could stick to it. Draft and trade for players aiming to continue that system.

It demands a change of attitude, though. You would draft based on fit, rather than BPA. You would not build a team around a superstar. You would not try to emulate other teams formulas and always be a step behind and almost get it just to see someone else do something totally different to win it all.

You would basically do something you believe in, shaping and adjusting it to perfection til you get a ring out of it.

I would interpret matters in the opposite direction; you find quality players and orient the system based on their strengths, as opposed to having a set system and just looking for players who can fill it. Otherwise, you may be shortchanging the caliber of the player that you acquire. Running a set system and finding players to fill it would be more appropriate in (US) football (especially college football), where players have shorter shelf lives, they are more interchangeable, and the game is more programmatic.

I do enjoy uptempo basketball, and the Suns' most successful periods in franchise history have been with that mode and identity. So that manner would be optimal, but in my opinion, you have to acquire the best players (at least in terms of a core) and then let their assets determine how you play.

letsgosuns wrote:Three things come to my mind when building a champion. First is having a top ten defense at the minimum, preferably top five or better. Second is having an offensive player that absolutely cannot be stopped. Every champion has that. Whether it is the league MVP or an MVP caliber player. The only team I can think of that ever won a champion without one of those completely unstoppable offensive players is the 2004 Pistons.

The third thing that I think of is basketball IQ. No way can you win a championship with stupid players. Unfortunately the Suns have been riddled with low IQ players for the past several seasons and still have a few.

I do like Watson playing Len and Chandler together and think that can be a winning formula. I would never recommend following Golden State's blueprint. That offense works because they have the greatest shooting backcourt in league history. It is not even close. No point in trying to duplicate what they do if Curry is not on your team. Winning a championship with a dominant big man is a proven way to go and that is what the Suns are trying to do now imo.

Personally, I do not believe that playing Len and Chandler together will lead the Suns anywhere over the long haul. Even when the league was much bigger and taller, in the eighties and nineties (Tim Duncan, Rasheed Wallace, and Kevin Garnett often served as starting small forwards in '97-'98), Len and Chandler would have constituted a clunky combination. Ultimately, you need a greater level of offensive skill and fluidity.

Also, while Len is looking more and more like a guy who could be a good, above-average starting center (in today's weak era of centers), the notion that he will be a "dominant big man" capable of leading a club to a championship is quite a leap. There is very little reason to believe that he will ever be remotely tantamount to Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Bill Walton, Moses Malone, Hakeem Olajuwon, David Robinson, Shaquille O'Neal, or Tim Duncan—the kinds of "dominant big men" that teams have won championships with.

The last several champions (Dallas in 2011, Miami in 2012 and 2013, San Antonio in 2014, and Golden State in 2015) have all featured perimeter-oriented offensive attacks and have often utilized (and sometimes started) smaller lineups. The league's rules and concepts are now oriented in that direction, and while one may not be able to replicate Golden State's formula in terms of shooting so many threes, championship offenses that are continually triggered from the perimeter as opposed to the post have become the norm.

One could argue that the 1979 Sonics, who won the championship, also lacked a "completely unstoppable offensive player," although Jack Sikma was a highly skilled offensive center and Guz "The Wizard" Williams constituted one of the quickest and most dynamic point guards around. Even the back-to-back champion "Bad Boys" Pistons proved questionable according to your criteria. Isiah Thomas could be "completely unstoppable" in streaks, and to some extent the same was true of fellow guards Joe Dumars and Vinnie "The Microwave" Johnson, but he was not all that efficient. When Detroit won its first title in 1989, Thomas led the Pistons in scoring in the playoffs (and the regular season), but in the postseason, he shot just .412 from the field, .430 on two-point field goal attempts, .167 on three-point field goal attempts, and .740 from the free throw line, good for an awful (over a relatively large sample, 17 playoff games) .481 True Shooting Percentage.

One could argue, too, that the 2014 Spurs lacked that "completely unstoppable offensive player." Sure, they featured Tim Duncan, but at thirty-eight, he was not usually that kind of player any longer. Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili might have been that guy here and there, but in their thirties with a lot of mileage on their bodies, they were not necessarily as explosive as they had been.

(I will not even bother going back to the first half of the 1970s and beyond, when highly regarded stars often posted mediocre-to-low field goal percentages.)

Ideally, you want that kind of player, but a big mistake that people make is to imagine that a scorer like Carmelo Anthony, Vince Carter, Allen Iverson, or Tracy McGrady is vital. Someone with explosive scoring ability who can take over a game, but one who is not especially efficient and who settles for or creates a lot of difficult one-on-one shots in addition to holding the ball or over-dribbling in a limited radius, does not represent the core of a championship formula. (Even Kobe Bryant was lucky to have played so much of his career with an outstanding big man, either Shaquille O'Neal or Pau Gasol.) In that scenario, you would be better off with the 2004 Pistons, the 1979 Sonics, the 1989 Pistons, or—better yet —the 2014 Spurs. There is a reason why Lenny Wilkens, who coached Seattle to the title in 1979, traded Dominique Wilkins in Atlanta in 1994 ...

Michael Jordan and LeBron James represent the exception, not the rule.

I will also note that historically, offensive efficiency has been as important to winning championships as defensive efficiency. In fact, Phoenix has ranked in the top four in defensive efficiency seven times in its history (1977, 1978, 1981, 1982, 1983, 2000, 2001), including two first-place finishes and one virtual tie for first place, yet failed to even reach the Western Conference Finals in any of those seven seasons. A championship formula generally demands an Offensive Rating (points scored per possession) and a Defensive Rating (points allowed per possession) that both rank in the top ten—with the top five or top six in both realms being ideal. For the record, the Suns last ranked in the top ten in both areas in 1993 and last finished in the top six in both in 1990. Phoenix placed in the top nine in both areas for five straight seasons from 1989-1993 and has not come close to doing so since.

The Suns last ranked in the top twelve in both categories in 1998.

Mulhollanddrive wrote:I think it's getting an MVP candidate player and 2 other All-Stars.

Then you can mix and match the rest from there for team balance.

Well... tonight vs GSW you can see this. GSW drafted Curry,Klay,Dray without a top 5 pick. If that was enough....SAc Town ought to be great. The Sixers...super. By Now the Hornets should be amazing. Okay. You want guys who can do SOME thing very well. You want to MAXIMIZE EVERY guy.. not a few. You want ALL round TEAM. GSW tonight.... MAY be coasting....and the game may seem close. They COULD beat the Suns by 30... if they wanted. WATCH the details. MOVEMENT. To play them you run in circles and oops.. you lost a guy who drops a 3.

You best play serious D. You also know.. GSW plays D. So.... WATCH the champs. They do 2016. Many teams do 2005.

Unless there are serious rule changes Warriors are team you want to copy in modern day basketball. To do so you need 3 things:
- shooting
- ball movement
- versatile defenders
Many people say "you can't copy Warriors because there is just one Curry". To win championship you need a superstar. Warriors have Curry. But I can't think of any star that wouldn't profit when surrounded by high iq 3pt shooters and defenders.
Warriors aren't so good just because of Curry. They have beautiful ball movement. Lots of their points are from wide open layups. That's the combination of great spacing, high iq players and right system. And of course also Curry drawing so much attention.
When to that beautiful offense you add great defence with players that are able to guard multiple positions you have unstoppable team.

That's why I'm high on Bender, he fits that scheme perfectly. Booker fits it to if he will improve his D.

No to oldschool back to the basket big men unless they also have good bb iq and are great defenders.
No to iso Iverson wannabe black holes.

letsgosuns wrote:Three things come to my mind when building a champion. First is having a top ten defense at the minimum, preferably top five or better. Second is having an offensive player that absolutely cannot be stopped. Every champion has that. Whether it is the league MVP or an MVP caliber player. The only team I can think of that ever won a champion without one of those completely unstoppable offensive players is the 2004 Pistons.

The third thing that I think of is basketball IQ. No way can you win a championship with stupid players. Unfortunately the Suns have been riddled with low IQ players for the past several seasons and still have a few.

I do like Watson playing Len and Chandler together and think that can be a winning formula. I would never recommend following Golden State's blueprint. That offense works because they have the greatest shooting backcourt in league history. It is not even close. No point in trying to duplicate what they do if Curry is not on your team. Winning a championship with a dominant big man is a proven way to go and that is what the Suns are trying to do now imo.

If you look at the Len/Chandler lineup numbers, they're our worst lineups. Offense just absolutely tanks when Watson plays them together.

Damkac wrote:Unless there are serious rule changes Warriors are team you want to copy in modern day basketball. To do so you need 3 things:
- shooting
- ball movement
- versatile defenders
Many people say "you can't copy Warriors because there is just one Curry". To win championship you need a superstar. Warriors have Curry. But I can't think of any star that wouldn't profit when surrounded by high iq 3pt shooters and defenders.
Warriors aren't so good just because of Curry. They have beautiful ball movement. Lots of their points are from wide open layups. That's the combination of great spacing, high iq players and right system. And of course also Curry drawing so much attention.
When to that beautiful offense you add great defence with players that are able to guard multiple positions you have unstoppable team.

That's why I'm high on Bender, he fits that scheme perfectly. Booker fits it to if he will improve his D.

No to oldschool back to the basket big men unless they also have good bb iq and are great defenders.
No to iso Iverson wannabe black holes.

I would argue, though, that the 2014 Spurs did not feature a superstar (Tim Duncan turned thirty-eight that spring) and yet that they constituted the most impressive champion since the 2001 Lakers. The second-most impressive champion since the 2001 Lakers, in my opinion, was the 2008 Celtics, and even whether they featured a superstar is debatable. Yes, Kevin Garnett was a former MVP recipient, Ray Allen amounted to one of the greatest shooters in history, and Paul Pierce was an outstanding scorer with the ball in his hands, but they were all in their thirties and none of them were consistently dominant. In a sense, they won the title by committee and by moving the ball—hence your point about ball movement, not to mention defensive versatility. Likewise, the 2004 Pistons won the championship without a superstar and came one win short of repeating the next year.

What helps Golden State is versatility. Draymond Green can push the ball and find guys in transition or on the break, while Stephen Curry can play off the ball to use down-screens to shoot. Thus even if more teams tried to take the ball out of Curry's hands (and no one presses full-court or even half-court the way that point guards often did in the nineties and earlier), the strategy can be minimized by the versatility of Green and Curry, not to mention Andre Iguodala and some of their other players. An analogy might be drawn to the Bulls in the nineties, where you could not really take the ball out of Michael Jordan's hands because you never knew when and where he would receive the ball—he was an expert at moving without the basketball, and the triangle offense freed him to play instinctively within a system so that he might catch the ball at any spot at any time. Meanwhile, Scottie Pippen and later Toni Kukoc gave Chicago front-court ball-handlers, enhancing Chicago's versatility even further.

Indeed, for all their explosiveness and efficiency, the Suns were not that versatile with Steve Nash and Amar'e Stoudemire. Mike D'Antoni's system might have worked even better if Stoudemire had possessed some ball-handling and playmaking skills and Nash had shot the ball more ...

Of course, if those two guys had been better defenders, they probably would not have needed to be more versatile offensively.

GMATCallahan wrote:

Damkac wrote:Unless there are serious rule changes Warriors are team you want to copy in modern day basketball. To do so you need 3 things:
- shooting
- ball movement
- versatile defenders
Many people say "you can't copy Warriors because there is just one Curry". To win championship you need a superstar. Warriors have Curry. But I can't think of any star that wouldn't profit when surrounded by high iq 3pt shooters and defenders.
Warriors aren't so good just because of Curry. They have beautiful ball movement. Lots of their points are from wide open layups. That's the combination of great spacing, high iq players and right system. And of course also Curry drawing so much attention.
When to that beautiful offense you add great defence with players that are able to guard multiple positions you have unstoppable team.

That's why I'm high on Bender, he fits that scheme perfectly. Booker fits it to if he will improve his D.

No to oldschool back to the basket big men unless they also have good bb iq and are great defenders.
No to iso Iverson wannabe black holes.

I would argue, though, that the 2014 Spurs did not feature a superstar (Tim Duncan turned thirty-eight that spring) and yet that they constituted the most impressive champion since the 2001 Lakers. The second-most impressive champion since the 2001 Lakers, in my opinion, was the 2008 Celtics, and even whether they featured a superstar is debatable. Yes, Kevin Garnett was a former MVP recipient, Ray Allen amounted to one of the greatest shooters in history, and Paul Pierce was an outstanding scorer with the ball in his hands, but they were all in their thirties and none of them were consistently dominant. In a sense, they won the title by committee and by moving the ball—hence your point about ball movement, not to mention defensive versatility. Likewise, the 2004 Pistons won the championship without a superstar and came one win short of repeating the next year.

What helps Golden State is versatility. Draymond Green can push the ball and find guys in transition or on the break, while Stephen Curry can play off the ball to use down-screens to shoot. Thus even if more teams tried to take the ball out of Curry's hands (and no one presses full-court or even half-court the way that point guards often did in the nineties and earlier), the strategy can be minimized by the versatility of Green and Curry, not to mention Andre Iguodala and some of their other players. An analogy might be drawn to the Bulls in the nineties, where you could not really take the ball out of Michael Jordan's hands because you never knew when and where he would receive the ball—he was an expert at moving without the basketball, and the triangle offense freed him to play instinctively within a system so that he might catch the ball at any spot at any time. Meanwhile, Scottie Pippen and later Toni Kukoc gave Chicago front-court ball-handlers, enhancing Chicago's versatility even further.

Indeed, for all their explosiveness and efficiency, the Suns were not that versatile with Steve Nash and Amar'e Stoudemire. Mike D'Antoni's system might have worked even better if Stoudemire had possessed some ball-handling and playmaking skills and Nash had shot the ball more ...

Of course, if those two guys had been better defenders, they probably would not have needed to be more versatile offensively.

I think a lot of that was on Mike for shying away from utilizing the post as we say Amare in NY he had a pretty effective low post game once he worked on it you can imagine how good he could have been here in his prime.

garrick wrote:I think a lot of that was on Mike for shying away from utilizing the post as we say Amare in NY he had a pretty effective low post game once he worked on it you can imagine how good he could have been here in his prime.

Yeah, but I am referring to the ability to handle the ball better and make effective passes and plays for teammates, which is something different.

Anyway, remember that when Terry Porter replaced D'Antoni, he gave Stoudemire all the "isos" and post ups that one could have wished for. Stoudemire was not very effective in those situations, and the Suns' offense lost its elite efficiency until Alvin Gentry replaced Porter and basically brought back D'Antoni's system.

Stoudemire did develop a post-up game in New York after he trained with Hakeem Olajuwon, but whether one could have run an efficient offense through Stoudemire in the post is another matter entirely, one that comes back to passing ability (or willingness).