boundbymusic wrote:League Circles wrote:jnrjr79 wrote:
Also, IMO, the fact people always reference a team that won this way more than twenty years ago as an example of a viable alternative model of team-building is not very persuasive. Ok, great, it happens once in a blue moon, but it sure as heck isn't the most likely way to get there and not the model you should aspire to if you want to maximize your chances of winning. Even if you build it this way, you're most likely not getting over the top unless you do something like Toronto, who had one of these kinds of teams, but couldn't get the chip until they traded for Leonard.
I always argued that the 2014 Spurs and 2010 Mavs also met this team archetype. So I'd say it's worked 3 times in the last 20 years, and every other title winner involved enormous luck of getting a generational talent. That's why I think it's the most viable model - because you can actually kind of will it into being, versus relying on unique luck.
The 2014 Spurs with 3 future HOF or the 2010 Mavs with 2?
The Spurs had a very old Manu and Duncan, a 12 ppg Kawhi, and yes a still good Parker. None of those guys played like HOF players that year. They had one all star and nobody in the top 11 of MVP voting.
The Mavs had a 37 year old Jason Kidd shooting 36% from the field and their best player was a 32 year old 2nd team all NBA guy who NO ONE thought was a top 2 or 3 PF in the league before or after. He was 6th in MVP voting. That was an ensemble title like the Spurs and Pistons teams I mentioned.
But yeah, supposedly over the hill guys are actually a low key plausible way to get good players to compete with. Underutilized in the market for sure.
