Championship Formula

[Neal04]

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

thanks

Here is the point differential dating back to the 2002 champs and their ranking in the league.

07/08 - Boston, +10.3, 1st
06/07 - San Antonio, +8.4, 1st
05/06 - Miami, +3.9, 5th
04/05 - San Antonio, +7.8, 1st
03/04 - Detroit, +5.8, 2nd
02/03 - San Antonio, +5.4, 3rd
01/02 - Los Angeles, +7.1, 2nd

Every champ has been in top 5 in point differential since the 2002 Lakers.

[drza]

I would argue that "post defense" is more important than "post offense" in the equation. People consider teams like the '04 Pistons and the Olajuwon Rockets as exceptions to the "multiple superstars win championships" rule, and teams like those same Pistons, this year's Celtics, and the Jordan Bulls as exceptions to the rule that championship teams need a dominant post scorer. To me, though, it's not so much that those are counter-examples to a "rule" as it is that the "rule" is not really the most comprehensive one.

But one trend that doesn't really have any exceptions over the past 20 years is that championship teams require a strong interior defensive presence than can help lock down the lane. Probably the weakest post defenders on championship teams of the past two decades were Shaq and Horace Grant, and they were still strong defensively down low. And taken in the context that post defense is the championship "rule", teams like the '04 Pistons and Hakeem's Rockets are no longer exceptions to the rule...they instead become examples that help strengthen the rule.

[Paydro70]

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.

"Fluky" is perhaps the wrong word... "unusual" maybe. You're right to point out that they had a midseason trade which could have swung those full-season stats greatly. Nonetheless, they do stand out in most championship comparisons for one reason or another (not as good on offense, no true star, no post scoring, etc.).

[celticfan42487]

So you mean Shaq or Duncan and win multiple times?

[Apollo64]

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.

"Fluky" is perhaps the wrong word... "unusual" maybe. You're right to point out that they had a midseason trade which could have swung those full-season stats greatly. Nonetheless, they do stand out in most championship comparisons for one reason or another (not as good on offense, no true star, no post scoring, etc.).

Those kind of teams that rely mostly on defense, lack a superstar etc. are admirable but usually can only win once and only under the right circumstances, as was the case with the Pistons. Granted, they came close to repeating the next year, but still...

Back to topic, the prototype for a championship team is something like the Spurs or the Celtics. Two all-star level perimeter scorers (Parker/Ginobili and Allen/Pierce) and one post scorer/defensive anchor (Duncan/Garnett). Great overall team defense. And a few defensive and shooting roleplayers. That's it and i don't think having only two go-to options in the offense cuts it anymore.

[Neal04]

I would argue that "post defense" is more important than "post offense" in the equation. People consider teams like the '04 Pistons and the Olajuwon Rockets as exceptions to the "multiple superstars win championships" rule, and teams like those same Pistons, this year's Celtics, and the Jordan Bulls as exceptions to the rule that championship teams need a dominant post scorer. To me, though, it's not so much that those are counter-examples to a "rule" as it is that the "rule" is not really the most comprehensive one.

But one trend that doesn't really have any exceptions over the past 20 years is that championship teams require a strong interior defensive presence than can help lock down the lane. Probably the weakest post defenders on championship teams of the past two decades were Shaq and Horace Grant, and they were still strong defensively down low. And taken in the context that post defense is the championship "rule", teams like the '04 Pistons and Hakeem's Rockets are no longer exceptions to the rule...they instead become examples that help strengthen the rule.

That's one thing I alluded to, which is a big man who can play defence, especially post defence. Past champions have one constant that remain the same, which is an interior defender who can clog up the lane, play help defence when perimeter players get beat and post defence. This is one thing where people can't say oh "he" was below average so there is one exception.

As for the Pistons being the flukiest champion, they might have been the weakest in recent years but you don't win a championship by luck.

[EricAnderson]

play great defense yes but you forgot a small little thing like hopefully have arguably the best player in the laegue on your team preferably big man but doesnt have to be

look at past champions and how many of em had "arguably" the best player in the league at the time or at least oen of em and an iconic top 20 player of all time

id say over 90% of em

[EricAnderson]

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

They were playing Kobe, Shaq, Malone and Payton.

yeah the pisotns were the only team the past 25 plus years to win a title without a great go to franchise player on there team

which i think is kinda catching up to thme the past few years since its so hard to win a title without at least one