Championship Formula

[Neal04]

Even though it is a cliche but defence wins championships. Since the 2000 season all the champions have 3 things in common: a big man who can post up, a wing player who can create and good team defence, not great but good.

Here's a list of the champions since 2000 with their wing player, big man and opponents PPG and FG%.
2008 - KG, Pierce, 90.3, 41.9%
2007 - Duncan, Ginobili, 90.1, 44.3%
2006 - Shaq, Wade, 96.0, 44.0%
2005 - Duncan, Ginobili, 88.4, 42.6%
2004 - Rasheed(that's a bit of a stretch), Hamilton, 84.3, 41.3%
2003 - Duncan, Parker(not necessarily a wing player but he could create), 90.4, 42.7%
2002 - Shaq, Kobe, 94.1, 42.4%
2001 - Shaq, Kobe, 97.2, 43.8%
2000 - Shaq, Kobe, 92.3, 41.6%

Also another thing they all have in common is that they all had an imposing big man to anchor the defence. All those bigs I listed were the ones who anchored their teams defence. The only difference is that Ben was the defensive force for the 04 Pistons and not Sheed.

Those are what I personally believe to be the main elements in a championship team.

[The Main Event]

Who are you working for ?! This stuff is supposed to be kept secret man.

[Kosar86]

looks like having at least 2 hall of famers also helps too.

[legacyinthemakin89c]

Lol I like how the Detroit championship was a fluke to half the league, but they have the best defensive stats out of all of those teams.

[Silk Wilkes]

You also gotta know you're good, obviously. I mean you know you're so good that you can beat anyone. A lot of team say they can beat anyone but they know they don't actually believe it.

[Paydro70]

At the very least, you ought to work from a team's points allowed per possession, not just per game and opponent FG%. Doing that ignores 3pters and free throws, and pace. Plus just putting up the numbers doesn't tell you how good the team is relative to the league.

Year - Pts/100poss, rank
2008 - 98.9, 1st
2007 - 99.9, 2nd
2006 - 104.5, 9th
2005 - 98.8, 1st
2004 - 95.4, 2nd
2003 - 99.7, 3rd
2002 - 101.7, 7th
2001 - 104.8, 21st
2000 - 98.2, 1st
1999 - 95.0, 1st
1998 - 99.8, 3rd
1997 - 102.4, 4th
1996 - 101.8, 1st

Despite that list, I'd have to say the "defense wins championships" stuff is overblown. All of these teams were also great on offense, you can just as easily say "offense wins championships."

2008 - 110.2, 9th
2007 - 109.2, 5th
2006 - 108.7, 7th
2005 - 107.5, 8th
2004 - 102.0, 18th
2003 - 105.6, 7th
2002 - 109.4, 2nd
2001 - 108.4, 2nd
2000 - 107.3, 4th
1999 - 104.0, 11th
1998 - 107.7, 8th
1997 - 114.4, 1st
1996 - 115.2, 1st

So... of these 13 champions, only 3 haven't been in the top 10 in both offense AND defense. Four of the 13 have had better offense than defense, and one was equal (1996 bulls, #1 in both). Granted, more of these teams have been better at defense than offense, and there is only one team that did not have a top-10 defense (the 01-02 Lakers), but I really don't think that it's as big a deal as most people make it out to be. Champions are great teams, who both score AND defend.

These are also, of course, small sample sizes.

[Malinhion]

Rebounding, defense, post scoring, two superstars, veteran roleplayers.

[Neal04]

At the very least, you ought to work from a team's points allowed per possession, not just per game and opponent FG%. Doing that ignores 3pters and free throws, and pace. Plus just putting up the numbers doesn't tell you how good the team is relative to the league.

Year - Pts/100poss, rank
2008 - 98.9, 1st
2007 - 99.9, 2nd
2006 - 104.5, 9th
2005 - 98.8, 1st
2004 - 95.4, 2nd
2003 - 99.7, 3rd
2002 - 101.7, 7th
2001 - 104.8, 21st
2000 - 98.2, 1st
1999 - 95.0, 1st
1998 - 99.8, 3rd
1997 - 102.4, 4th
1996 - 101.8, 1st

Despite that list, I'd have to say the "defense wins championships" stuff is overblown. All of these teams were also great on offense, you can just as easily say "offense wins championships."

2008 - 110.2, 9th
2007 - 109.2, 5th
2006 - 108.7, 7th
2005 - 107.5, 8th
2004 - 102.0, 18th
2003 - 105.6, 7th
2002 - 109.4, 2nd
2001 - 108.4, 2nd
2000 - 107.3, 4th
1999 - 104.0, 11th
1998 - 107.7, 8th
1997 - 114.4, 1st
1996 - 115.2, 1st

So... of these 13 champions, only 3 haven't been in the top 10 in both offense AND defense. Four of the 13 have had better offense than defense, and one was equal (1996 bulls, #1 in both). Granted, more of these teams have been better at defense than offense, and there is only one team that did not have a top-10 defense (the 01-02 Lakers), but I really don't think that it's as big a deal as most people make it out to be. Champions are great teams, who both score AND defend.

These are also, of course, small sample sizes.

I was too lazy to go in depth about the defensive statistics but you make a valid point about the offence being as important. I never discounted the importance of offence though but I personally think defence is more important.

Although at the end of the day the object of the game is to put the ball in bucket and outscore your opponent.

[Paydro70]

Yeah... it is a pretty simple game, at base. Make use of your possessions, stop the other team from scoring on their possessions.

BTW, the Pistons are indeed the flukiest champion on the list, up there with the 2002 Lakers as the only teams to actually be below-average on one side of the ball.

[JordansBulls]

Rebounding, defense, post scoring, two superstars, veteran roleplayers.

[Paydro70]

Who was the post scorer for the Celtics? Perkins? And for the Bulls? Was it Sheed for the Pistons? These are just more cliches...

[Neal04]

Who was the post scorer for the Celtics? Perkins? And for the Bulls? Was it Sheed for the Pistons? These are just more cliches...

Not necessarily post scoring but a big man who can score and post up once in a while.

[Bobbcats]

2003 - Duncan, Parker(not necessarily a wing player but he could create), Parker? 2003?

[Neal04]

2003 - Duncan, Parker(not necessarily a wing player but he could create), Parker? 2003?

Ginobili hadn't really established himself at the time and Parker was their starting point guard and second leading scorer for the Spurs. Although Parker was inconsistent throughout the playoffs.

[pillwenney]

The Pistons were no fluke, but they did go about it a different way.

I guess it kind of boils down to the idea that if you have a major advantage in one way, you can afford to be weaker in other ways. Sheed was never really that ideal of a post player, but their defense that year was absolutely dominant.

[realfung]

Detroit in 2004 was so good.....and without any superstars, they managed to win a championship.

They were playing Kobe, Shaq, Malone and Payton.

[RoyceDa59]

Rebounding, defense, post scoring, two superstars, veteran roleplayers.

, and shooters.

[Paydro70]

The Pistons were no fluke, but they did go about it a different way.

I guess it kind of boils down to the idea that if you have a major advantage in one way, you can afford to be weaker in other ways. Sheed was never really that ideal of a post player, but their defense that year was absolutely dominant.

Yes, an excellent point. Basketball has simultaneously only two components (scoring, stopping scoring), and dozens (ballhandling, rebounding, shooting, shot blocking, post scoring, etc. etc.). These things are of varying importance, and you can adjust in certain ways (maybe you're not so great at shooting if you have enough inside scoring). It's hard to be legitimately BAD at anything and still win, but ultimately there is no hard-and-fast RULE of how to win a championship.

[kevC]

BTW, the Pistons are indeed the flukiest champion on the list, up there with the 2002 Lakers as the only teams to actually be below-average on one side of the ball.

I wouldn't necessarily say they were fluky. The post-Sheed trade Pistons of that season were UNBELIEVABLE on defense and probably the greatest defensive team of this generation.

[RockTHECasbah]

Can someone pull up the point differential rankings for the champs?

thanks