RealGM

I think the NBA is hopefully following the trend of success. After years of trying to built super teams like the Warriors/Heat finally the anti thesis seems to work.
Arguably the teams in the conference finals had only 1 top 15 players in their squad (brunson, ANT, SGA, haliburton) and the rest are good building pieces. the sixers, clippers, suns, nets, mavs, tried to do it with multiple (super)-stars in recent years and hopefully others will learn.

schnakenpopanz wrote:I think the NBA is hopefully following the trend of success. After years of trying to built super teams like the Warriors/Heat finally the anti thesis seems to work.
Arguably the teams in the conference finals had only 1 top 15 players in their squad (brunson, ANT, SGA, haliburton) and the rest are good building pieces. the sixers, clippers, suns, nets, mavs, tried to do it with multiple (super)-stars in recent years and hopefully others will learn.

I agree, but it's been over for a while. The last superteam to make an NBA Final was the Lakers, in 2020.

Ice Man wrote:

schnakenpopanz wrote:I think the NBA is hopefully following the trend of success. After years of trying to built super teams like the Warriors/Heat finally the anti thesis seems to work.
Arguably the teams in the conference finals had only 1 top 15 players in their squad (brunson, ANT, SGA, haliburton) and the rest are good building pieces. the sixers, clippers, suns, nets, mavs, tried to do it with multiple (super)-stars in recent years and hopefully others will learn.

I agree, but it's been over for a while. The last superteam to make an NBA Final was the Lakers, in 2020.

good one

It won't be truly "over" until LeBron retires. OKC and Indy, combined, probably had fewer media topics than Bronny James did this past season.

And it'll be the same next season. The media will continue to push the superteam/big market stuff, even if the way to win has changed. It's about depth and overall team construction, not just having a team 2-3 superstars.

We will see. Imagine LA makes it next year with Doncic and Bron. Will the super teams be back just cause of two stars playing there?

But yeah depth has become more important since nowadays role players are super good.

The Sixers, Suns and Philly have good building pieces. Did I read that correctly?

Joao Saraiva wrote:We will see. Imagine LA makes it next year with Doncic and Bron. Will the super teams be back just cause of two stars playing there?

But yeah depth has become more important since nowadays role players are super good.

Bron is hardly the cornerstone of a super team right now. Yes he is probably the best ever to play at such high level at this stage, but Lakers have to follow the path of others. it would be so much easier if LeBron decided to play for vetmin, but you know ego and stuff.

Optms wrote:The Sixers, Suns and Philly have good building pieces. Did I read that correctly?

no they thought they had when they tied to built teams with multiple star power.

Joao Saraiva wrote:We will see. Imagine LA makes it next year with Doncic and Bron. Will the super teams be back just cause of two stars playing there?

But yeah depth has become more important since nowadays role players are super good.

sure lebron has star power but is he even top 30 in performance across all season?

The CBA prevents these teams from forming. And if an owner has the balls to form a super team, someone is going to have to accept less, or face the facts that that team will probably only last 2 seasons, 3 max depending on how deep ownership wants to pay into the apron. You can sometimes avoid the apron, but that means you'll be paying 3 guys a max, one guy an MLE, and the rest of minimum contracts. LA/PHX/etc have proven to us that plan doesn't work for the most part.

it took them 4 seasons to come up top. their pathways were not the same, but should b a blueprint for a good ownership and front office success

I personally don't really care how the teams come together, I care how they play. I like when ball and player movement leads to open shots, be it inside or from 3. I hate the ISO Bron-ball or Harden style where it's the same guy bringing the ball up every time and they just run a P&R for him to switch onto a weak defender and he drive and kicks.

Honestly, I probably prefer "super teams" in theory, but usually those lead to a lot of my turn-your turn ISO ball with the top 2 or 3 guys. But I love when you have stacked "super teams" with real ball and player movement. So fun to watch.

I like good teams. Historically, good teams have often had considerable star power on them.

But fit does matter, so having a bunch of guys who like to iso a lot doesn't often work as well as having players who complement one another well. That, health and defense were the big difference between, say, Golden State and Brooklyn. And health, of course, for the Clippers.

New York did a great job putting together an interesting team, at last. I hope they'll be back for more deep runs. OKC has REAMS of talent, and a superstar. Indy is a lot of fun to watch, with great energy, up-tempo play and some really interesting pieces.

Not looking forward to how the NBA is screwing over good teams with the present cap structure, but for the moment, I think we're looking at a wonderful Finals series upcoming with OKC and Indiana.

OKC stockpiled a million picks. Long as one of their picks or trades turned into a superstar (SGA) then they were bound to succeed.

Sixers would’ve had the same result if they kept Hinke but they made sure to turn the process into dogpoo.

We were told this is bad for the NBA when Hinke did it but it’s “the right way” when Presti does it ?

But I do agree the way Pacers built their team is quite admirable.

hugepatsfan wrote:I personally don't really care how the teams come together, I care how they play. I like when ball and player movement leads to open shots, be it inside or from 3. I hate the ISO Bron-ball or Harden style where it's the same guy bringing the ball up every time and they just run a P&R for him to switch onto a weak defender and he drive and kicks.

Honestly, I probably prefer "super teams" in theory, but usually those lead to a lot of my turn-your turn ISO ball with the top 2 or 3 guys. But I love when you have stacked "super teams" with real ball and player movement. So fun to watch.

True. Because most stars are prized first for the on-ball scoring ability, stacking these kinds of players together often had diminishing returns. Lebron, Wade, and Bosh each had some complimentary skills but were all at their best with the ball in their hands. The Heat struggled to come up with something to maximize all 3, and in year 2 they mostly gave up and gave Lebron the ball. James Harden and Chris Paul also basically took turns in Houston.

A couple super teams in the past have had really nice fit though. The late 2000s Celtics were pretty perfect and complimentary. Each of Pierce, Allen, and KG dialed back iso ball and leaned on their complimentary skills. KG's ability to be a passing, spacing hub and Ray's all-time great movement shooting made it pretty easy. Then there was the "Hampton 5 Warriors" Where Steph, Klay, and Durant were all so deadly off-ball that they could put the ball in the hands of their least threatening offensive player.

Teams in this era need to be really good and very deep. I don't think you need multiple MVP types as much as you need a really strong top 6, and a functional 8-man playoff rotation.

I heard you, but heres the thing. OKC is currently a superteam. The Celtics were a superteam before Tatum's injury and their inevitable blow-up this off-season.

Those two teams were levels above the NBA due to sheer talent. OKC may not be a traditional superteam in a sense of starpower, but when you compare their talent to the rest of the NBA, they can be classified as a superteam. They are the new Warriors, and the only thing that can stop them is their decision on keeping both Chet and JWill, because both will be signing max extensions with OKC, or elsewhere.

No more Superfriends.

Good times.

bbms wrote:

Joao Saraiva wrote:We will see. Imagine LA makes it next year with Doncic and Bron. Will the super teams be back just cause of two stars playing there?

But yeah depth has become more important since nowadays role players are super good.

sure lebron has star power but is he even top 30 in performance across all season?

top 30 Idk but he's definitely not a top league player anymore. Top 30 I'd have to think about it, but people will still call it a super team and if they somehow win it all he'll be back being top 10 even if he's not. People are super result oriented when analyzing

We’ll see. This is an odd era by many accounts. I’m not convinced it’s gone, but the apron rules at least make it harder to sustain.

A lot of the younger stars of today have found relatively high degrees of early success. What will happen when they start to meet disappointment?

Wingy wrote:We’ll see. This is an odd era by many accounts. I’m not convinced it’s gone, but the apron rules at least make it harder to sustain.

A lot of the younger stars of today have found relatively high degrees of early success. What will happen when they start to meet disappointment?

If teams can't get it done, players will. That's the message, no?

Lebron started this whole journey because Cleveland unilaterally failed to provide him with a team comparable to the dominant squads of the time, and he wanted to win a lot of titles, so he went out and found a situation where that was possible. The greats before him were gifted those squads by their management teams. It's no different, really. He also didn't demand a trade, he just played out his contract and left, then signed as a FA, which is a bit different than what some of the subsequent players have done. Demanding out of the contract you signed is some bull, for sure.