What makes a Championship Team?

[Dean]

I read on 82games.com a few months back, an article called "Blueprint for an NBA Championship Team", and was fairly interested by it.. I even half implememnted it into my 2k Dynasties haha.. But anyways, i just re read it a minute ago, and decided to ask you all what you think makes a Championship Team, and if you want to go one step further, a Dynasty.

Is it chemistry? stacking superstars on to the team? defense oriented teams? pure offense? mix of both? pass first point guard? lock down big man? hall of fame worthy perimeter scorer?

Some of the interesting points the writer makes are:
92% of all NBA Champions featured at least 1 All NBA player, during the 4 years preceding the championship. Only 4 teams that won a championship did not.

81% had a recent all Defense selection

92% had a player Top 10 in efficiency in the season preceding the championship.

The writer then goes on to name 3 steps for a Championship. They are
1. Aquire a superstar
2. Aquire a sidekick
3. Make sure one of them can defend.

According to the writer, this would mean Kevin Garnett and Tim Duncan are the players most likely to win you Championships. Both are the only players in the 11 Top Tier players they list (Which isnt the most accurate because Ron Artest is one of them ), to have been MVP, All NBA 1st, Top 8 in Efficiency, and have an All Defensive 1st team selection.

The Spurs also had the sidekick in Bruce Bowen (Top Defender) at the time the article was written, and no doubt since then Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili have both stepped up as great 2nd options. Now if Duncan can win with those guys, then surely Kevin Garnett can win a Championship in Boston, when hes matched with Paul Pierce and Ray Allen, who are way way way better than Tony Parker, Bruce Bowen and Manu Ginobili when it comes to sidekicks, but is it guarenteed? Or does it take more than A superstar scorer and a top defender to win a championship?

Anyways, going back to my original question, what do you think makes a Championship team?

Here is the article too: http://www.82games.com/dennis.htm

Sorry if this makes little sense, im extremely hungover

[benji]

In the simplest sense: Having a better team than the four teams you face in the playoffs.

An ideal five-man lineup consists of two high usage players at least of average efficiency, two high efficiency players on both ends, and a top notch defender/rebounder. Good example: Bulls, Chicago. 1996.

EDIT: To delve into this a bit more...one thing that also is important is a good bench. That might be most important of all.

1996 Bulls (usage rate ("possessions per 40"), ORtg ("points per 100 possessions")
Longley (17.2, 103) - Rodman (10.4, 109) - Pippen (24.4, 116) - Jordan (31.9, 124) - Harper (15.0, 117)
League average was 108 for ORtg. Pippen and Jordan are high usage and as an added bonus are super-efficient, Harper is efficient on both ends, Rodman is killer on defense and the boards. Jordan and Pippen (who is also a killer defender) allow them to get away with playing Longley for his size. Rounding out the first nine guys are:
Kukoc (21.3, 125) - Kerr (13.1, 141) - Wennington (15.6, 111), Buechler (16.8, 113)

2007 Spurs do things a bit differently...but the concepts are there:
Oberto (11.9, 112) - Duncan (25.5, 111) - Bowen (10.0, 101) - Ginobili (25.1, 117) - Parker (26.0, 112)
League average is 106. Duncan, Parker and Manu use high possessions, but are all supper efficient. Duncan is the best defensive player since Bill Russell. Him and Oberto rebound. Bowen is a good defender as well. Oberto helps by also being efficient offensively.
Finley (17.7, 108) - Barry (14.7, 126) - Elson (13.0, 100) - Horry (12.7, 104) - Bonner (18.0, 111) - Vaughn (15.1, 105)
Elson and Horry are defensive powerhouses off the bench.

2006 Heat don't look like they were packing efficient players at first glance:
O'Neal (26.6, 108) - Haslem (12.6, 116) - Posey (10.6, 112) - Wade (30.2, 115) - Williams (17.9, 113)
Entire starting lineup is above the 106 league average. Two high usage, four high efficiency guys, Haslem and Shaq hit the boards. Posey and Wade dominant defensive players.
Walker (20.9, 101) - Payton (13.6. 107) - Mourning (15.1, 113)
Mourning was a defensive beast and offensively efficient. Walker hurts you, but they got over it.

2004 Pistons show off how depth in numbers can overpower top-heavy teams (they went through three for the title):
Wallace (14.0, 98) - Wallace (21.5, 104) - Prince (14.7, 106) - Hamilton (24.1, 103) - Billups (22.8, 112)
League average was 103 that year. First three power the stifling defense. Billups is super-efficient (he would be better in later years of course) and Hamilton meets average efficiency.
Williamson (21.4, 102) - Okur (19.6, 107) - Campbell (20.5, 96) - James (17.0, 107) - Hunter (12.9, 88) - Ham (10.7, 97)
Some of the Pistons reserves used defense to make up for their offense. Hunter was on fire after returning and combined with James to bring backcourts to their knees. Ham (although he should've never been on the court as much as he was) is also a defensive beast. Campbell was invaluable against Shaq in the Finals by not allowing him position closer.

The reason I like the above denoted lineup is because it covers the four factors. Offensive boards are hit by the rebounder, you have at least two guys who can take shots, and at least two guys who can make shots. (If those guys who can take shots can also make them, you become a truly dominant team like the Bulls.) So, you likely have a good shooting percentage, low turnovers and control the offensive glass.

The reason this unit becomes ideal is due to the fact there is a limited number of possessions. If you have four high usage guys that reduces the number of possesions for the most efficient of those guys. By having the few-possession rebounder/defender, those possessions can be allocated to the superior players. Yes, the 4-on-5 concern is there, but if you have a Longley and not a Ben Wallace, that guy will be able to force defenses to at least pay him some mind.

Yes, having a lineup with "three stars" and stuff like that is great. But if I was building a team from scratch it's much easier to get the players who can do the things/roles noted well. Then when you do get a third star you can become extra good really fast. Like the Pistons did in 2004. But I'm probably babbling and making little sense now!