Part 3: Additional Superstars Needed For Championships

[RealGM Articles]

It is not just having a platinum or gold superstar that matters, it is having additional superstars that separates the champions from the pretenders. Now let’s look at how many superstars have been on each NBA championship team or runner-up. These are all active superstars, meaning they have played qualifying minutes and are not over-age; hence Gary Payton’s year with the Heat in 2006 does not count, nor does Manu Ginobili’s in 2013 or Jason Kidd’s in 2011, nor Kareem’s seasons in 1987 and 1988.

P= Platinum

G= Gold

S= Silver

B= Bronze

T= Total 

Year	Champion	P—G—S—B—T	Runner-Up	P—G—S—B—T
2013	Heat	1—0—1—0—2	Spurs	1—0—0—1—2
2012	Heat	1—0—1—0—2	Thunder	0—1—0—1—2
2011	Mavericks	0—1—0—0—1	Heat	1—0—1—0—2
2010	Lakers	1—0—0—0—1	Celtics	0—1—0—2—3
2009	Lakers	1—0—0—0—1	Magic	0—1—0—0—1
2008	Celtics	0—1—0—2—3	Lakers	1—0—0—0—1
2007	Spurs	1—0—0—2—3	Cavaliers	1—0—0—0—1
2006	Heat	0—1—1—0—2	Mavericks	0—1—0—0—1
2005	Spurs	1—0—0—2—3	Pistons	0—0—1—1—2
2004	Pistons	0—0—1—1—2	Lakers	1—1—1—0—3
2003	Spurs	1—0—0—1—2	Nets	0—0—1—0—1
2002	Lakers	1—1—0—0—2	Nets	0—0—1—0—1
2001	Lakers	1—1—0—0—2	Sixers	0—0—1—0—1
2000	Lakers	1—1—0—0—2	Pacers	0—0—0—0—0
1999	Spurs	2—0—0—0—2	Knicks	0—0—1—0—1
1998	Bulls	1—0—1—0—2	Jazz	0—1—1—0—2
1997	Bulls	1—0—2—0—3	Jazz	0—1—1—0—2
1996	Bulls	1—0—2—0—3	Sonics	0—0—1—1—2
1995	Rockets	0—1—0—1—2	Magic	0—1—0—1—2
1994	Rockets	0—1—0—0—1	Knicks	0—0—1—0—1
1993	Bulls	1—0—1—0—2	Suns	0—1—0—1—2
1992	Bulls	1—0—1—0—2	Blazers	0—0—0—1—1
1991	Bulls	1—0—1—0—2	Lakers	1—0—0—0—1
1990	Pistons	0—0—2—1—3	Blazers	0—0—0—1—1
1989	Pistons	0—0—2—1—3	Lakers          1—0—0—0—1
1988	Lakers	1—0—0—0—1	Pistons	0—0—2—1—3
1987	Lakers	1—0—0—0—1	Celtics	1—0—0—3—4
1986	Celtics	1—0—0—3—4	Rockets	0—1—0—1—2
1985	Lakers	2—0—0—0—2	Celtics	1—0—0—3—4
1984	Celtics	1—0—0—3—4	Lakers	2—0—0—0—2
1983	Sixers	0—2—0—1—3	Lakers	2—0—0—0—2
1982	Lakers	2—0—0—0—2	Sixers	0—1—0—1—2
1981	Celtics	1—0—1—2—4	Rockets	0—1—0—0—1
1980	Lakers	2—0—0—0—2	Sixers	0—1—0—1—2
1979	Sonics	0—0—0—2—2	Bullets	0—0—1—1—2
1978	Bullets	0—0—1—1—2	Sonics	0—0—0—2—2
1977	Blazers	1—0—0—0—1	Sixers	0—1—0—1—2
1976	Celtics	0—1—1—0—2	Suns	0—0—1—0—1
1975	Warriors	0—0—1—0—1	Bullets	0—0—1—1—2
1974	Celtics	0—1—1—0—2	Bucks	1—1—0—0—2
1973	Knicks	0—1—1—1—3	Lakers	2—0—0—0—2
1972	Lakers	2—0—0—0—2	Knicks	0—1—1—1—3
1971	Bucks	1—1—0—0—2	Bullets	0—0—0—1—1
1970	Knicks	0—1—1—1—3	Lakers	2—0—0—0—2
1969	Celtics	1—1—0—0—2	Lakers	2—1—0—0—3
1968	Celtics	1—1—1—0—3	Lakers	1—1—0—0—2
1967	Sixers	1—0—2—0—3	Warriors	0—0—1—1—2
1966	Celtics	1—1—1—0—3	Lakers	1—1—0—0—2
1965	Celtics	1—1—1—0—3	Lakers	1—1—0—0—2
1964	Celtics	1—1—1—1—4	Warriors	1—0—0—1—2
1963	Celtics	2—1—1—1—5	Lakers	1—1—0—0—2
1962	Celtics	2—0—1—1—4	Lakers	1—1—0—0—2
1961	Celtics	2—0—1—1—4	Hawks	1—0—1—0—2
1960	Celtics	2—1—0—2—5	Hawks	1—0—1—0—2
1959	Celtics	2—1—0—1—4	Lakers	0—1—0—0—1
1958	Hawks	1—0—1—0—2	Celtics	2—1—0—1—4
1957	Celtics	2—1—0—1—4	Hawks	1—0—1—0—2

The seven teams that have won titles without a platinum or gold medal superstar are often called “ensemble” teams because they had a cast where the third or fourth player was not that much worse than the first or second player.

Maybe the vast majority of teams that do not have a top-30 all-time player in his prime on their roster can aspire to developing an “ensemble team,” right? Then, you have a shot. Maybe there is hope for the two dozen or so NBA teams that do not have James, Durant, Howard or Paul—or Bryant, Nowitzki, or Duncan (if still in their primes). Or the teams led by the few young players may vault into this group in the next few years, from the likes of Rose, Griffin, Westbrook, and maybe Anthony Davis or Kyrie Irving.

Well, not really. The “ensemble” option is almost as difficult as having a platinum or gold caliber superstar.

One of the seven “ensemble” champions was led by Rick Barry, and had he spent the five seasons he was out of the NBA pursuing an ABA career from age 23 to age 28 he would certainly be a top-30 gold medal player. So toss that one out.

Two of remaining seven “ensemble” champions—the legendary Bad Boy Pistons of 1989 and 1990—had two silver and one bronze superstar on them. There are no present NBA teams that have two silver and one bronze superstar in their primes on their roster. No one is close. Those were truly great teams.

The four remaining “ensemble” champions each had two silver or bronze superstars in their prime on their rosters. How may present NBA teams even meet that standard to try to make it as an “ensemble” champion? The Knicks, if Stoudemire is healthy, would be the only one that might then challenge the platinum and gold superstar led teams. And as one who has seen a lot of Knicks basketball in recent years, I can tell you that this Knicks team only wins an NBA title in 2014 or 2015 if all of the legitimate contenders with a gold or platinum superstar falter, through injuries or dissension.

And that is how “ensemble” teams generally win NBA titles: they get through in flukes like the 2004 Pistons when the superior Lakers imploded or like the Bullets and Sonics in the late 70s when the league was “between” superstars.

And here is another factor the above data indicates that doubles the height of the walls around the gated community where NBA championship contenders reside: it is not just having a platinum or gold superstar that matters. That is necessary but not sufficient. A champion generally requires at least one or two more superstars from this list to contend and to win.

Most championship teams have at least two players from the glorious 95 list on their roster. (The dynasty Celtics of the 60s had as many as five in a single season—with two platinum stars—topped off by Bill Russell. No wonder they could vanquish a Lakers team with platinum and gold medal superstars Jerry West and Elgin Baylor and, later, Wilt Chamberlain. If Bill Russell had never been born, those Laker teams probably would have won five or six titles in the 60s.) It is striking how many teams have two superstars of at least silver status.

If you are a fan of a team with a platinum of gold superstar in his prime, life is good. It is very good, especially if your team has at least one other superstar in his prime on the roster.

The vast majority of NBA teams have no superstars at all on their roster. Is their future is to play the hapless Washington Generals for the next generation of superstar-led teams? Maybe hope to get lucky once or twice a decade and get a couple of rounds into the playoffs before their inevitable demise? Fill their fanbase with a lot of propaganda about how they just need another piece and some more experience to win a flag?  Probably. But smart GMs understand the superstar thesis and take steps to increase their odds dramatically. We will discuss those teams and those measures in part two.

[robbie84]

Just incredible. That's something I'll reference to for the next 10 years and it's something I've always sprouted.
You're one of my favorite basketball writers. As a fellow Celtics fan I'm really trying to make others understand how important this is. They think Avery Bradley, Green, Rondo and Sullinger with another All Star will make us a serious threat/contender against established teams like Miami/Chicago/Indiana/Brooklyn in the East- It's extremely frustrating how easy people think it is after witnessing KG fall into our laps in 2007- and we still only won a single championship with all that talent.

Question for you Elrod.
I'm one of the Celtics fans that is enormously pro tank. In a draft like this I'm basically in the group of fans that says do whatever you can to get a top 3 pick and that our chances of getting a game changer via a draft like this are much higher than acquiring a combo of something like Kevin Love and Carmelo Anthony to put with Rondo-
Even getting lucky enough to put ONE star like LaMarcus Aldridge next to Rondo and Jeff Green isn't getting us over the edge. particularly in a draft like this that appears to be once in an NBA generation level of talent. Combine that with just how poor we will be anyway and to me it's a no brainer and appears to be what Danny Ainge is doing despite more of his infamous public denials and deflections.


What's your position on acquiring these superstars via the draft vs via a trade?
Looking back at the last 25+ years of championships it seems the only team that won a title without a home grown or home drafted superstar was the 2004 Pistons.
Seems to further add premise to your argument. Most of these teams that won also acquired another superstar somehow but to have 2 of those type of players on your roster seems almost impossible via trade.
I can think of Kobe and Shaq, Duncan and Parker, Pierce and Garnett, Lebron and Wade etc... they needed each other but one of them is always drafted by that championship team.
In fact the only team to win without 2 stars in their prime or close to it would be the Mavs in 2010?
In a team like the current Celtics, are you in favor of ...

1)playing as hard as we can, grasping for that 8th playoff spot and worsening our draft chances

2) The polar opposite route of sitting or trading Rondo for some kind of draft asset in 2014 and ensuring our lottery chances are as high as possible.

3) structuring the roster the way Ainge appears to have done now to ensure we probably don't make the playoffs but also risk being a bit too good for our own good? I personally think we are a bottom 5 team as constructed but it's just amazing how many Celtics fans seem to think we could actually win 38+ games.
Even with a healthy Rondo our lack of scoring and shooters, lack of interior defense/offense are just too much. I say 28 wins at most if we are lucky and Danny Ainge doesn't orchestrate a more severe roster 'tank' approach as the season reaches the All Star break.

Or do you think Danny's move's are pretty perfect because he has the option to just sit players like Rondo, Sully and manipulate how poorly we'll defend 99% of opposing NBA teams?

I'm assuming you're in favor of the math approach via lottery/ tank ...and being pro tank I'd love to hear what you have to say regardless of your position.

Great article, thanks again.

[23_Knows_All]

Just incredible. That's something I'll reference to for the next 10 years and it's something I've always sprouted.
You're one of my favorite basketball writers. As a fellow Celtics fan I'm really trying to make others understand how important this is. They think Avery Bradley, Green, Rondo and Sullinger with another All Star will make us a serious threat/contender against established teams like Miami/Chicago/Indiana/Brooklyn in the East- It's extremely frustrating how easy people think it is after witnessing KG fall into our laps in 2007- and we still only won a single championship with all that talent.

Question for you Elrod.
I'm one of the Celtics fans that is enormously pro tank. In a draft like this I'm basically in the group of fans that says do whatever you can to get a top 3 pick and that our chances of getting a game changer via a draft like this are much higher than acquiring a combo of something like Kevin Love and Carmelo Anthony to put with Rondo-
Even getting lucky enough to put ONE star like LaMarcus Aldridge next to Rondo and Jeff Green isn't getting us over the edge. particularly in a draft like this that appears to be once in an NBA generation level of talent. Combine that with just how poor we will be anyway and to me it's a no brainer and appears to be what Danny Ainge is doing despite more of his infamous public denials and deflections.


What's your position on acquiring these superstars via the draft vs via a trade?
Looking back at the last 25+ years of championships it seems the only team that won a title without a home grown or home drafted superstar was the 2004 Pistons.
Seems to further add premise to your argument. Most of these teams that won also acquired another superstar somehow but to have 2 of those type of players on your roster seems almost impossible via trade.
I can think of Kobe and Shaq, Duncan and Parker, Pierce and Garnett, Lebron and Wade etc... they needed each other but one of them is always drafted by that championship team.
In fact the only team to win without 2 stars in their prime or close to it would be the Mavs in 2010?
In a team like the current Celtics, are you in favor of ...

1)playing as hard as we can, grasping for that 8th playoff spot and worsening our draft chances

2) The polar opposite route of sitting or trading Rondo for some kind of draft asset in 2014 and ensuring our lottery chances are as high as possible.

3) structuring the roster the way Ainge appears to have done now to ensure we probably don't make the playoffs but also risk being a bit too good for our own good? I personally think we are a bottom 5 team as constructed but it's just amazing how many Celtics fans seem to think we could actually win 38+ games.
Even with a healthy Rondo our lack of scoring and shooters, lack of interior defense/offense are just too much. I say 28 wins at most if we are lucky and Danny Ainge doesn't orchestrate a more severe roster 'tank' approach as the season reaches the All Star break.

Or do you think Danny's move's are pretty perfect because he has the option to just sit players like Rondo, Sully and manipulate how poorly we'll defend 99% of opposing NBA teams?

I'm assuming you're in favor of the math approach via lottery/ tank ...and being pro tank I'd love to hear what you have to say regardless of your position.

Great article, thanks again.

You and this writer both need help.

[24istheLAW]

You and this writer both need help.

Why does this writer need help? For writing an insightful piece about the NBA? Jeez.

[ronmarshall]

With all due respect to the author, I think this model is fundamentally flawed. To my eye, the apparent "astounding results" actually involve pretty obvious, if elaborate confirmation biases at work.

In short, the biggest problem in this model is the disproportionate weight given to MVP voting. MVP voters typically favor the best players on the best teams over the best players in the league. In other words, that vote does not accurately capture the "superstar" quality that of measurement as the author asserts, but rather the favoritism of the voters toward the limited universe of players who make a difference, i.e., players on teams who happen to be well-positioned to win a championship. It is more an indicator of the predictive ability of voters of the time, not their player evaluation ability.

One need not look beyond the interesting case of Michael Jordan leading the league in scoring, PER, and win shares for 7 seasons in a row from '86-'87 to '92'-'93 while only winning 3 NBA MVPs. He was unquestionably the best player in the NBA every single one of those years, but:

1.) Having the best player does not guarantee a team a championship (he only won rings in 3 of those seasons - one of them a non-MVP season), and

2.) One doesn't need to have the best player to have the better team (as the Pistons ably demonstrated during that period - though they were a great team as later sections of this piece point out).

In short, I think the recursive nature of heavily weighting a voted rewarding players playing on teams most likely to win a championship to determine what kind of players are necessary to win a championship is a big flaw in the model. That is to say, had the Chicago Bulls drafted Karl Malone with the 13th pick in the 1985 draft instead of Keith Lee, and Malone had delivered exactly the same production as he did in his career, the biases in the voting system would have changed his score and position in this model, even if he were the exact same player with the exact same numbers. The same would likely apply if the Lakers had drafted Sam Cassell instead of George Lynch, if the Celtics drafted McGrady instead of Ron Mercer, if the Pistons had taken Bosh instead of Darko, or a host of other scenarios.

[Justice4Reggie]

This is one of the greatest number-backed analyses I've seen of what it takes to win an NBA championship!

Unfortunately, I have to agree with the guy below too. Also, how in the world is Reggie Miller not mentioned anywhere in these 3 sections?

In Section A, the system must be flawed if Reggie's not ranked higher than Chauncey Billups. Chauncey from how I see it had a shorter span of good years compared to Reggie Miller's longer span of great years. Reggie Miller is undoubtedly a better player than some of those guys on the "Top 95" list. My guess why he didn't make the list was because he played in an era dominated by amazing shooting guards (like MJ, Clyde, Dumars, etc,) and guards in general (like Stockton, Gary Payton, the Hardaways, Kevin Johnson, etc) who took up a lot of awards he would have gotten in any other era.

In Section B, it appears as if the "Best Players in the Final 4 Teams" list has been manipulated by the author to drive home the author's point. In the "ECF/WCF Best Players" column, four times Reggie Miller was indicated the best player on his team - rightfully so. BUT, as soon as they reached the finals in 2000, the author decided that since he wasn't on the "Top 95" list, he shouldn't be the considered the best nor even 2nd best player on the championship losing team. This now allows the author to claim

All but one of the losers in the NBA Finals since 1955-56 have featured one of these superstars.

I think the author has some explaining to do on how a team with supposedly no superstar at any level manages to come within 2 games of winning it all. A Major counterexample to his entire thesis. He also needs to reconsider his evaluation of Reggie Miller.

[CR Reina]

Reggie Miller is an outlier in a lot of ways due to him being largely one-dimensional while having an outsized place in the media/culture due to several signature moments over a very long career.

Basketball Reference had an interesting perspective on this issue a few years ago in considering his Hall of Fame credentials since he did so poorly in their HOF Probability.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=1008

Only made five ASG's and three career points in MVP voting.

[Justice4Reggie]

Regarding the Hall of Fame piece, you bring up and interesting point, Mr. Reina. I agree that his credentials are intriguingly low for a shoe-in Hall of Fame candidate, but the Hall of Fame also tends to reward players who have changed the game of basketball in significant ways, to which Reggie Miller was just the right combination of classic heralded superstar and one-dimensional uniqueness that brought a team to the finals that never had been before.

But then the question begs that why should you rank a player's affect on winning a championship solely on his accomplishments in the regular season? There were times when Reggie may not have been the best consistently throughout a whole season, but in the playoffs when the time came, the man straight up took over games. Isn't this quality of his the most influential in leading the Pacers to 4 ECFs and 1 Finals?

Also, it still has yet to be explained the phenomenon of the 2000 Pacers that apparently had nobody close to a superstar. If an explanation of this could be added on, this would be a solid piece of work.

P.S. I'm a big fan of your writing Mr. Reina!

[yosh_mane]

So according to your calculations:

Blake Griffen > Rondo > Carmelo > Parker

and,

Dwight Howard > Chris Paul > Nowitski > Wade

Oh yeah, and Durant > Oscar Robertson?...

Those make very little sense and discredit the rational in the point system you've created.

[bfpri]

Interesting way of quantifying things, but obviously not foolproof. It doesn't take into effect the level of competition. Dwight is obviously no where as good as Hakeem is right now. But he's ranked so highly because he has no competition, i.e. no other centers to compete with him, so he gets placed high on All-NBA teams as well and easily gets DPOY.

[CR Reina]

Good points on playoff production. Reggie put up better numbers throughout his career in the postseason. I'm sure Reggie's longevity also worked against him since he played more than 1,900 minutes even at 39. I think you could safely consider him in the Bronze Medal fringe, which has produced only one 'Best Player on Champion'. The 2000 Pacers reached The Finals while the Eastern Conference was in transition between the Bulls and the rise of the Nets/Pistons and would have been a huge outlier if they would have beat the Lakers.

Regarding the Hall of Fame piece, you bring up and interesting point, Mr. Reina. I agree that his credentials are intriguingly low for a shoe-in Hall of Fame candidate, but the Hall of Fame also tends to reward players who have changed the game of basketball in significant ways, to which Reggie Miller was just the right combination of classic heralded superstar and one-dimensional uniqueness that brought a team to the finals that never had been before.

But then the question begs that why should you rank a player's affect on winning a championship solely on his accomplishments in the regular season? There were times when Reggie may not have been the best consistently throughout a whole season, but in the playoffs when the time came, the man straight up took over games. Isn't this quality of his the most influential in leading the Pacers to 4 ECFs and 1 Finals?

Also, it still has yet to be explained the phenomenon of the 2000 Pacers that apparently had nobody close to a superstar. If an explanation of this could be added on, this would be a solid piece of work.

P.S. I'm a big fan of your writing Mr. Reina!

[CR Reina]

From the piece on Oscar:

Or consider this: Had Oscar Robertson retired after 11 seasons in 1971 he would be among the top dozen players in the game’s history, on the platinum list below. And anyone who saw the Big O play in the 1960s, as I did growing up in Ohio, knows that is exactly where he belongs. But because he played three additional years with Milwaukee, he slides down to the gold list.

So according to your calculations:

Blake Griffen > Rondo > Carmelo > Parker

and,

Dwight Howard > Chris Paul > Nowitski > Wade

Oh yeah, and Durant > Oscar Robertson?...

Those make very little sense and discredit the rational in the point system you've created.

[Slick Southpaw]

ranking dwight howard and david robinson ahead of hakeem olajuwon????

DISGUSTING ARTICLE.

The author needs to be mildly beaten and IP banned at the very least.

DISGUSTING.

[Slick Southpaw]

smdh.....

[HeatRing2012]

did I justread an "astonishing" article which wants to capture a formular to rate the best players with unbiased data... but is based around the MVP award which is handed by some journalists who never played basketball in their life and which is essentially story driven?

if we take a look at recent MVP winners, then we'll see the major flaw of this anlysis.
e.g. Rose was not the best player in the league two years ago. but he'll get the points because is team had the best record. meanwhile we saw the Bulls still pull off a 60 win season(adjusted) even while Rose was injured. the following year they were on a brink of upsetting two favorites in a row. this further highlighted the fact that the team/coach of the Bulls had more impact than Rose. yet, according to your metric, Rose was seen as the best player in the league. with hindsight (the thing you ignored), this looks rather foolish - isn't it?

from an econometric point of view this article reeks of multicollinearity.
why awarding so many extra point for all-defensive teams? do you think Tyson Chandler won DPOY and made the all-defensive teams because of his offense? no not really, but he still made the all-star team regardless, even though he has no offensive moves to speak off. again this is also a case of story-driven award winners.
the New York defensive raise in '12 had more to do with their improved perimeter defense (they went from dead last in '11 to top 1 / 2 in '12) and thats certainly no area Tyson worked at. furthermore the backup bigs in New York had better defensive impact than TC. granted, the Knicks collected a bunch of former DPOYs and generally elite defensive bigs to cover up for Chandlers flaws. thats also the reason why Martin is closing out games for the Knicks, and not CHandler. still, Tyson was the starter and the ubiquitous media had to hand the award for their defensive improvement to somebody. given the market size of NEw York, they pushed for Chandler.
but I digress, the point was the multicollinearity involved here. if you run any sesnsitivty analysis with your data, we'll have to reject many of your hypothesis because of the involved MC. let me not start with handing out all defensive slots based on weak competition and reputation... or do we really think Kobe was an elite defender over the last 5 season? does CP3s lack of heigth warrent an all-defensive-1st slot each year (even though all PGs he faced in the post season had mind boggling scoring outburst against Paul?)

then there are all the arbitrary cut offs made by the author... I don't even know where to start. so much wrong with it and I'll leave it as it is.

I'm kinda mad right now because I read a 1000 words article in hope of finding something new or interesting.
but it was essentially a ranking based on career award which was already done in a similar fashion by basketball-reference (hof-probability) and even those guys used an asterisk to this formular as they mentioned that no sane evaluator should base a ranking on awards given out by story tellers (media). also highlighting that the voting process changed over the years (in the past, players picked the MVP, now it's the journalists like "screaming" Smith or "idiot" Bayless), hence a change in the determination of the award would render all trys to form a reliable metric out of those futile.

well you still tried...

[Perishable517]

Very well done. I appreciate the thought that went into assigning value to various things. Yes, I agree with others that there are obvious issuess with certain players and their rankings. But, if you manipulate the numbers so player x or player y should be where most agree they should be, wouldn't that be bias?

I like that he let the chips fall as they may.

What I find more interesting is the subsequent breakdown of superstar players on the final four teams. It isn't perfect but it is very much worth discussion.

[HeatRing2012]

Very well done. I appreciate the thought that went into assigning value to various things. Yes, I agree with others that there are obvious issuess with certain players and their rankings. But, if you manipulate the numbers so player x or player y should be where most agree they should be, wouldn't that be bias?

I like that he let the chips fall as they may.

What I find more interesting is the subsequent breakdown of superstar players on the final four teams. It isn't perfect but it is very much worth discussion.

he didn't let the chips fall at all.

HE assigned some random numbers (as value) to award XY.
HE was the one who installed arbitrary cut offs.

[Dr Positivity]

Here is an article I wrote disputing this "Superstar Theory" (not necessarily against your post alone, but among other similar arguments)

http://asubstituteforwar.wordpress.com/ ... ar-theory/

"On Realgm.com, a writer Elrod Enchilada posted a well-researched, multi-part article about “The Superstar Theory”. Popular online, this theory shows the domination of superstar-led teams winning titles in the NBA’s 58 year history. The idea thus that if a team wants a title, they need a superstar, or they’re hoping for an aberration.

While the Superstar Theory looks good and has merit, I have reasons to retort it

My first argument against it, is that the champions in the 1950s and 1960s are not relevant evidence. With 8 teams in 1960 growing to 12-13 by 1968 and 1969, the probability of a team having a superstar like Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, Jerry West, Oscar Robertson, Elgin Baylor, Bob Pettit, Walt Bellamy, etc. is much higher. The ratio of superstars to teams in the 60s is similar to the ratio of all-stars to teams in modern day and that all the champions had superstars, is probably no more meaningful than every modern champion having an all-star talent. This is before considering the other time gap differences between the 50s and 60s now – such as the vastly higher pace of the games, spacing-less games because of the lack of a 3 point shot/perimeter skill and no 3 in the key rule and general strategic deficiencies. I’d argue the 50s and 60s titles should be thrown out entirely of this research. It’s a different league.

In the 70s the league expanded, which along with the ABA diluted the talent level in the league and made it easier for the best teams to dominate. Despite this, the 70s is by far the best decade for ‘ensemble’ teams in NBA history. The 1978 Washington Bullets led by Wes Unseld, Elvin Hayes, Bob Dandridge and 1979 Seattle Supersonics led by Gus Williams, Dennis Johnson, Jack Sikma are held up as premium examples of ensemble champions. The New York Knicks in 1970 and 1973 and Boston Celtics in 1974 and 1976 are also within the ballpark of ensemble teams. While Walt Frazier, Willis Reed, John Havlicek, Dave Cowens along with the Bullets and Sonics players are stars, there is a line in the sand between those stars and others in the era like Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Jerry West. The comparison would be if Gary Payton’s Supersonics won 1996, or one of Jason Kidd’s Nets/Chris Webber’s Kings won in 2002. Teams with stars, but they wouldn’t fit the model of generational stars that most other champions have had the last 34 years.

Between the smaller amount of teams, changes in the rules and style of play and success of ensemble teams in the 1970s, the Superstar Theory using seasons before 1980 isn’t necessary. And this doesn’t hurt the theory, since most like pointing out that since 1980, 33 of the 34 champions have had one of these players: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Moses Malone, Isiah Thomas, Michael Jordan, Hakeem Olajuwon, Shaquille O’Neal, Kobe Bryant, Tim Duncan, Dwyane Wade, Lebron James, Kevin Garnett, Dirk Nowitzki. 33 of 34 is hard to get past, right?

To start with disputing this, I’d throw some doubt towards one of those names: Isiah Thomas. Isiah at one point of his career, fit the profile of a mega-star. From 1984 to 1987, Thomas averaged at least 20 points and 10 assists a game, finished in the top 10 in MVP voting each year and had 3 1st team All-NBA appearances, 1 2nd-team. However when the Pistons won their titles in 1989 and 1990, Isiah was neither the same player in accolades or statistics. In ’89 Isiah averaged 18.2 points, 8.3 assists, 3.7 TOVs, .528 TS%, 106 ORTG, in ’90 he averaged 18.4 points, 9.4 assists, 4.0 TOVs, .501 TS%, 104 ORTG. Neither exemplary lines. He made the all-star game both seasons, but didn’t make an All-NBA team and jarringly, finished 17th and 13th in MVP voting both years despite the Pistons winning 63 and 59 games those seasons. Being the best player on a dominant team is usually a free pass to the top 5 in MVP voting – which is how players like Jermaine O’Neal, Peja Stojakovic, and Chauncey Billups have finished top 5 in MVP voting in seasons the last decade. In either statistics or accolades, there’s little reason to believe the Pistons are less of an ensemble team by 1989 and 1990 than the 2004 Pistons, or 1979 Supersonics and 1978 Bullets. A team with stars, but not a superstar like the rest of those 33.

Adding those 2 title teams, makes the odds a little more fair. That makes 3 of the last 34 as ensemble teams. Or if one takes a more favorable selection by counting 78 to 04, that’s a healthy 5 in 27 years.

However, that’s not the only reason to doubt the 80s and 90s as evidence. An important distinction is looking at exactly what built the Lakers, Celtics and Bulls dynasties in the 80s and 90s, combining for 14 titles in 19 seasons between 1980 and 1998. After the Jazz signed Gail Goodrich in 1976, they were forced to give the Lakers a future unprotected pick as free agent compensation. That’s how the Lakers had the #1 overall pick in 1979 to take Magic Johnson, despite having a good 47 W, 2nd round team built around Kareem Abdul-Jabbar the previous season. In 1980 the Cavaliers owner Ted Stepien began a binge of trading future 1sts, to the point where the league had to create a rule named after Stepien to prevent trading consecutive 1sts. One of those picks went to the Lakers, which in 1982 ended up #1 overall, allowing the Lakers to take James Worthy. In 1979 the Celtics traded Bob McAdoo to the Pistons for an unprotected future 1st, which allowed the Celtics to pick #1 overall in 1980 despite winning over 60 Gs Larry Bird’s rookie season. They infamously dealt this #1 pick to the Warriors for #3 (Kevin McHale) and Robert Parish. In 1987 the Bulls’ average season gave them the 10th overall pick, but they also had 8th, Denver’s draft pick, which the Knicks had originally acquired and then dealt to the Bulls. The Bulls took Horace Grant 10th, then moved from 8 to 5th to draft Scottie Pippen.

Obviously in modern day, teams with superstars like Kareem, Magic and Bird having the #1 overall pick, is almost impossible to replicate as a strategy. Teams value draft picks for more, draft picks are protected and free agent compensation is defunct. How the Bulls got the 8th pick is more replicable, but it’s likely either Denver or New York protects that pick in modern day.

Another major difference is the CBA. The introduction of the rookie salary scale and max contracts, among other differences, changed the strategical environment for NBA teams. The last 15-20 years is also when the league stylistically started to resemble modern conditions.

While an argument can be made for allowing the Magic, Bird and Jordan era into the equation, between antiquated way those teams were built and the growth of modern strategy and CBA, I see it more reasonable to use the 15 seasons after the Jordan era as the real comparison for the environment teams have to build a champion now.

Now, the Superstar Theory still holds up OK the last 15 seasons. 14 of the last 15 champions have had Shaquille O’Neal, Tim Duncan, Kobe Bryant, Lebron James, Dwayne Wade, Kevin Garnett or Dirk Nowitzki, true all-time greats. The main retort against this is sample size. 15 years, or even 30 years, is well within reach of what could be a hot streak for superstars, not a true trend. While it’s not totally fair to compare it to 15-30 ABs for an MLB player or 15-30 FGAs for an NBA player, that’s an example of a statistical selection that’s not reflective of a player’s ability.

Furthermore, the last 15 years have had a number of extremely close calls for ensemble teams. Consider the 2000 Blazers, who had an all-time collapse against the Lakers in the Western Conference Finals, preventing an ensemble Blazers-Pacers finals. The 2002 Kings had a heartbreaking loss to the Lakers and were the victim of an acknowledged crooked game a la the Tim Donaghy scandal. It could be argued that Webber or Kidd qualify for a star led title team, but like some teams in the 70s, there’s a line in the sand between them and a Shaq or Lebron. The 2005 Pistons’ bid to repeat ended in G7 of the Finals against the Spurs. The 2010 Celtics had a 3-2 series lead and were up in the 3rd quarter of Game 7 of the Finals and lost to the Lakers. Of course, we just saw the 2013 Spurs lost after the trophy was rolled out in Game 6 for them. Even if 2 or 3 of those 5 teams had won the title, there’d be 3 or 4 ‘ensemble’ teams in 15 seasons since the Jordan era ended. That works out to a 1 in 3.75-4 chance, far friendlier than 1 in 15. While superstar teams would still have an advantage, that’s a healthy enough ratio that we wouldn’t be talking about how hopeless it is for teams without a superstar. One can make the argument that superstars are responsible for why 2 or 3 of those close calls teams didn’t win, but the point is that there’s reasonable doubt. It’s not that it’s a guarantee that of the next 15 titles, 3 or 4 will be ensemble teams, to dispute the “Superstar Theory” only requires a chance. Since it was within reason for 3 or 4 out of the last 15 titles to have gone to ensemble teams, it’s within reason for 3 or 4 the next 15 too. On the outskirts, it’s within reason 6 or 7 do, even if unlikely. This is especially true considering the league is always changing. The CBA is intended to increase parity, with the NFL as a desired model. The development of advanced metrics teams is changing the environment of the league. In NBA history previous generation’s versions of the Memphis Grizzlies fell short at the hands of superstar teams, but John Hollinger’s response to that may be that those teams didn’t have a strategy resembling his, or perhaps they’d have broken through.

There’s no question that the game is tilted towards superstars and the best players winning titles. However, the conclusion that it’s hopeless for everyone else, is founded on a stretch the last 15 years of superstar teams dominating, when it may have been simply bad luck for ensemble teams more than anything else. When considering this and that the league is consistently moving in new directions that will favor different types of franchises, I don’t find The Superstar Theory to be conclusive evidence."

[C2Poke88]

Any "theory" that results in Derrick Rose being ranked #40 all-time is seriously flawed.

Major flaws in your theory:
1.) Derrick Rose ranked #40
2.) Derrick Rose in the same superstar category as Stockton, Payton, Wade, Ewing, Pippen, Kidd, Iverson, Mourning, Isiah Thomas, Dominique Wilkings and Dennis Rodman
3.) Derrick Rose in a higher superstar category than Pierce, Melo, Billups, Ginobli, Rondo, McHale, Bernard King, Dennis Johnson, Chris Webber, etc.

Rose received a MVP award that he did not deserve. The award should have gone to Lebron or Howard. Rose's undeserved MVP award gives him a huge bump in these rankings. It's pathetic how that faux MVP keeps getting rewarded because he was given an award he had no business winning. smdh