What does it take to win a championship?

[BruceO]

Statistically find similarities in the teams that have won championships in the last 15 years. Find similarities positionally and/or teamwise. See which positions are key. Find what output or aspect of the game is needed from each position and how to put them together. Heights, weights... any caveats to the rules. Also mention which upcoming players project into these prototypes

[fugop]

The strongest correlation is with winning the last game of the season.

[pancakes3]

talent.

[FAH1223]

POST presence on offense and defense

[Zonkerbl]

If the NBA is an efficient market then any perfectly repeatable combination of players/whatnot would become so expensive that no one could repeat it.

Each championship team combines talents/coaching/luck in a unique way. Lakers are different from Detroit are different from Chicago are different from the Spurs are different from Detroit II are different from Dallas. As long as you're doing your due diligence at some point everything comes together.

Well, the one repeatable trait of championship teams: be located in a big market. But there's still the occasional exception, like the Spurs.

But you have to find a new way to win a championship each time. It's too expensive to try and repeat the last success because everybody else is bidding for that same combination of players. Go be the first to scout Europe. Be the first to collect a whole starting five of almost all-stars. Be the first to forswear the free agent market entirely and build your team entirely through the draft. Whatever is effective that no one else has tried yet.

[tontoz]

All-NBA 1st and 2nd team players regardless of position. I can't remember a team that won a title without at least 1.

In response to the other thread Magic, Isiah and Frazier are pgs that led their teams to titles. The bottom line is that it takes great players to win titles.

[no D in Hibachi]

I think every champion over the last 20 years has had one player on the all-nba defensive team.

[Dat2U]

You need elite shot creators/shot makers. Those can come from any position. An elite shot creator can create shots for themselves (which they make at a high rate) AND create for others. They can operate out of the post or be a perimeter dominate player. From Kobe, to Dirk, to Bird, to Magic, to Hakeem to Shaq. They can usually not only carry the offense but facilitate offense for teammates as well. (i.e. Shaq getting double teamed in the post which creates an open look for a 3 pt shooter).

[hands11]

We have done this several times. Do a google search.

http://82games.com/dennis.htm

There is a documened formula.

All NBA this and that. HOF
All defensive member over the last year.

There are combinations of these things.

Definatley good team D is needed and protecting paint.

Then you need that one player who can go against even the tougest D with ice in their blood who can hit from all over.

A Kobe, MJ, Dirk, Wade

[The Fax]

Competent ownership/staff, genuine dedication, a whole lot of hard work, and a sprinkle of luck here and there.

The Wizards have only .5 outta these 4.

Leonsis can make it a full 1/4 if you catch my drift.

[BruceO]

Well statistically and measurement wise can you tell me the difference between the pf' that have won championships and the others like boozer, bosh, Amare, Jamison etc. Why do these guys never win? Set thresholds to be met. Also tell me similarities in sg position for players who have won it all statistically. Yes a player must create but at what rate? What efg% , how many freethrows. Creating for others what asst/turnover ratio?

[sfam]

The strongest correlation is with winning the last game of the season.

I'm going with this answer.

[doclinkin]

The strongest correlation is with winning the last game of the season.

I'm going with this answer.

No we commonly win the last game of our season and usually it just gives us a crappier draft pick.

[Dr Genius]

You need these things to be a championship contender.

As a team, you need to have top five offense and defense in the league. As for your personnel, you need one of these two combinations:

Combination 1:
1 superstar
3 stars
4-5 good role players giving you at least a PER of 13-16 in 15-18 mins/night
Chicago and the Spurs are the examples of this combination. The only other possible scenario is to have five stars and 4-5 good role players. The Detroit Pistons is a prime example.

Combination 2:
2 superstars
1 star
2-3 good role players giving you at least a PER of 13-16 in 15-18 mins/night

Also, you also need management that can find those good role players for cheap in the late first rounder or second rounder. The current Miami Heat is a prime example. Dynasty Bulls and Dynasty Lakers with Shaq and Kobe are good examples.

[montestewart]

The only other possible scenario is to have five stars and 4-5 good role players. The Detroit Pistons is a prime example.

Late 60s early 70s Knicks are also a good example

I guess 70s Bullets hovered somewhere between 1 and 2, depending on whether you see Unseld as a superstar at that point. If not, I'm not sure who the 3rd star on the '78 champions is (they did have Chenier for the 1st half of the year). 90s Rockets too, not sure they had three "stars" w/ Olajuwon. Still I get your point, and you could argue that those two teams had role players at the upper end of your formula.

[doclinkin]

Statistical Big Brain Doctor Dean Oliver suggested the most important key team stats in any ball game are his four factors (weighted below by order of importance):

1. Shooting (40%)
2. Turnovers (25%)
3. Rebounding (20%)
4. Free Throws (15%)

Each of these is of course best looked at as a differential, that is, offense and defense, like so:

1. Does your team score more efficiently than the other team and do you prevent the other team from scoring well.
2. Do you protect the ball, and do you force giveaways.
3. Do you provide offensive reset buttons for your team, and do you also prevent second chances.
4. Do you pad the stats with bonus points and force 2nd line players to absorb more playtime by tagging opposing starters with fouls. Do you avoid that jeopardy yourself.

Given that we're dead last in two categories (Shooting differential and rebound differential) it shouldn't startle anyone that we're struggling at this point. Given that scoring is the biggest factor (offense and defense) I'd address that first.

Here is where the dominant two-way Bigs traditionally make their mark. The reason why teams draft height before skill. There are two key points of defense on the court at all times: the ball and the basket. One moves, the other doesn't. It's far easier to effectively guard the one that doesn't. Therefore if you have a dominant intimidating post defender you can shave % points off the opponent's scoring probability simply by patrolling the inner keep with your big dog.

Now granted, rules changes have been enacted that take this into account to prevent uglyball and tilt the playing field in favor of the littleman. Big dog is not allowed to sleep on the porch, he has to pace around the yard a little. Play the 2.9 second polka, within one long step of the paint but not in it.

Defensively all this has done however is require that your Big is mobile and long. If you don't have a one-man-zone type low-post defender, you are not advancing in the playoffs. This is still the easiest point to defend, you need some one who is big enough strong enough long enough to hold his ground but athletic enough to close and erase mistakes if the perimeter shield is penetrated.

Offensively however this rules tweak means post offense is less emphasized.

A traditional pound-it-down-their-throat big man is no longer required. In fact to make your interior big a high usage player is difficult in this era. Zone defenses prevent easy entry passes, and camping in the lane is similarly whistled for fouls on offense. Because it is easier to defend that stationary point, your offense is less dynamic if you rely on a high usage low-post attack.

In fact on Offense you're relying on the mobility of that ball to befuddle opponents into making a mistake and give you room to dart in and score at the rim. The most high percentage shot is a dunk or a lay-up (>60% eFG), then a three pointer (>50% efg) then a close call between a midrange shot and a Free Throw.
Nowadays you don't need a bigman to score at the rim. Currently 4 of the top 10 interior scorers are guards. Granted in the playoffs things tighten up and refs allow tougher play, but even so recall little JJ Barea, smallest man on the court, knifing past defenders and tossing in lay-ups.

So if on defense you're trying to prevent 3pters and lay-ups, on offense you're looking for same. You want smart passers, good ball handlers, and reliable attackers who spot a narrow opening and shoot through it. Quick, smart decisions, clutch mindset. You also want long range gunners to force teams to loosen their chokehold on the interior, make them chase you, open those gaps.

Normally that's what I'd be looking for. Defensive ability and offensive skill/smarts. Question is how you quantify it.

More on that later.

[doclinkin]

Intangibles:

Individual defense is tough to measure in a box score but, at the end of the year, look at the NCAA team with the best defensive eFG, and take a serious look at whomever their best defender is, best big man. Double check him against his competition, how did opposing Draft-caliber Bigs fare against him.

Ball smarts is another tricky thing to read blind. Box scores leave much to doubt or interpretation but a few stats to me always stand out as indicators of BBIQ.

Defensive rebounds (relative to position) tend to give a glimpse at a player's all-court awareness. (Not offensive rebounding which is a better indicator of raw athleticism or a height mismatch in a small conference -- and depending on position scrambling for offensive boards can leave players out of position for transition defense). Anyone who has played a bit of ball understands that even a smaller player can box-out or carve space for defensive boards among the giants if they're canny, sturdy, willing to scrap a bit. Defensive boards are a good indicator that you know where your opponent is and can read the situation well in an instant, and that winning is more important than highlights.

On the offensive end proportionate Assists (per possession) suggest the yin to the yang of D-boards: you know where your teammates are and where they are going. Now high ast totals can simply indicate a player who is force fed the ball so I look at the various passing ratios, reflected against usage, to get a better picture. But it's an indicator. If a PF shows good passing ratings compared to other bigs, he probably understands what to do if doubled. Where to swing the ball to make them pay.

As for clutch mindset-- One stat isolates both mental stamina and work ethic: Free Throw shooting. (Relative to position). Here is an instance of a skill a player can improve on simply by practice. The one instance where you can score without interference by anything other than your own neuroses or fear of failure. It's also suggestive of a player's ability to improve their jumper. If you can groove the mechanics while at a standstill it's often only a matter of work to improve them while in motion.

Lastly, on intangibles, I look at trends. Improvement.

Given Wiz luck we're generally picking late amid scraps and overlooked players. Here you get a chance to see more upperclassmen, late bloomers, less raw supertalent. The benefit is that you can check a track record of stats to see if a player is at a standstill in their ability or if they are ironing out issues in their game. Here you're more likely to land solid role-players than all-NBA types, but at least you won't waste years and millions trying to groom them before they are ready. If indicators elsewhere are pretty good, check the track record of personal improvement, as well as their performance against proven NBA talent in prior years.

[montestewart]

Two great and informative posts. Thanks, doclinkin.

[doclinkin]

So: shooting at all positions. Defense on the interior. Rebounding. These are our biggest needs. And depth for all of the above of course.

A coach can shade percentages at both ends of the court with good schemes, but if no one can execute on his behalf you'll have no idea whether he's worth a darn anyway. Ultimately teams win with veterans who have experienced the pressure drop of the postseason and proven themselves skilled therein. For this reason I never pass a chance to look at the NCAA champions. The One and Done format is a crucible that tends to melt the dross and alloy the temper you need in a winner. The best player on that squad always has a place on my roster if I can afford him. Ditto perennial Eurochamps. That's a shortcut to veteran experience, a head start.

Ultimately though a team can perhaps grow their own champions: stockpile talent, make smart trades then add the right coach. (Philadelphia is looking damn deep and talented, and savvy, they may get there before Oklahoma). Or in rare instances trade collected talent for a disgruntled superstar.

Where we are? Pretty far behind that. But it's not hopeless.

If we could win what would it look like?

Defense: We've drafted the acknowledged best defensive player in the ACC for two years running. (Booker and Singleton). Both show flashes as savvy tough players, whatever their redundancies and shortcomings. We also added a Euro version of same. Granted they are all essentially playing variations of the same position. But on good teams that's called depth. Versatility. They all need offensive improvement. But all are noted as hard workers, it may come.

Post play: Interior Bigs are less relevant than they had been, however we may have an exception to the rule, realistically. McGee will never be Dwight Howard, but he doesn't have to be. But other than Dwight, JvMcG is a physical mismatch on any other player in the league. His one-step range is 'Mr Fantastic'. Effectively, when he's on his game, he is inside the paint even when he's in other players' mid-range. And if he improves and grooves that hook shot, the best defense will be to foul him. The apex of leap he shows when goaltending teardrop jumpers is actually an underappreciated asset in one area: post entry feeds. If his teammates learn the pass, nobody else can get high enough to deflect it. He just needs to establish position in his comfortable range then go up up up and get it. Make his move. Score.

As for post defense. McGee is improving. His rebounding is better. No question he changes shots (and occasionally gets tweeted for a goaltend when he actually caught it at the top). He'll still make boneheaded mistakes, a few per game, but fewer than before. Point is always improvement. Immaturity is one weakness that occasionally fixes itself.

We still need a low-post rebounder who can win the 50-50 balls, seal the paint, call out switches, captain the D. A burly round mound of rebound type who has range to 15 feet, good passing, smarts, strong enough to hold his ground, canny enough to anticipate. Sullinger has caught my attention despite his drawbacks. I dunno, still looking.

Mismatches in our favor: Exterior attack. John Wall has taken a few hits this year, but he's still one of the quickest in the game. Problem is he's trying to split the defense of 3-4 players at a time. There's no room on the interior. Take away even one of those players and he'll get more calls in his favor. Take away two and he's at the rim. In that respect, on offense more than anything we need shooters with range.

Give me snipers, continued progression by McGee, and you know an allstar PF plus a few years draft of bench depth and hey, championship.

[doclinkin]

Two great and informative posts. Thanks, doclinkin.

Thx. First time in a while I had a minute to post. Or inclination. Wiz fans, you know. MIning the slag heap for nuggets of hope is the thing we're most skilled at.