Wrong about the "Superstar" to win a championship

[Stevo]

Hi, Stevo here, recently joined the forums and not too long ago engaged in a long and detailed conversation with other forumnites here about the necessity of a "superstar" to win a championship.

I was the first to state I clearly felt a superstar was needed to win championships in today's NBA.

However, less then 8 hours ago, the San Antonio Spurs proved me wrong. I'm so happy to have been wrong.

A collection of good basketball players playing the way the game was meant to be played; as a team.

The initial argument stemmed from how to make the Raptors in to a championship team, and I dismissed the fact that Spurs were, simply because I thought it was unrealistic for a team in today's NBA to take the throne without that "guy", who could take over games and strike fear in to opposing coaches. A superstar can have that quality of being unguardeble, where a team rarely has that same trait.

The Spurs have shown me otherwise, and though I still don't think the Raptors should try to emulate the Spurs (for a variety of reasons) I gotta say it is insanely refreshing that the Spurs won in the way that they did.

It's true. In a superstar driven league, superstars are not ABSOLUTELY necessary to win championships.

Thanks Spurs.

[mcHAPPY]

Yeah, if you don't have a superstar you just need a former superstar with all-star wingmen and a core that has been together for 12 years with one of the best coaches in history during that time plus another 5 years.

Piece of cake.

[Scraptor]

It's true. In a superstar driven league, superstars are not ABSOLUTELY necessary to win championships.

This is technically true, but in lieu of superstar you need probably the greatest coach of all time and three hall of famers who have won more playoff games as a trio than any other trio in the history of the game.

Anything is possible. But is it realistic? Dwane Casey has shown absolutely no indication that it is. The guy drew up the final play for our season ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE FLOOR.

It's a wonderful goal to aspire towards, but I think we have to be careful not to think it's as easy as the Spurs made it look. That is a well-oiled, finely-tuned, winning-basketball machine.

edit: mcHappy beat me to it. Great minds something something.

[mcHAPPY]

This is technically true, but in lieu of superstar you need probably the greatest coach of all time and three hall of famers who have won more playoff games as a trio than any other trio in the history of the game.

Anything is possible. But is it realistic? Dwane Casey has shown absolutely no indication that it is. The guy drew up the final play for our season ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE FLOOR.

It's a wonderful goal to aspire towards, but I think we have to be careful not to think it's as easy as the Spurs made it look. That is a well-oiled, finely-tuned, winning-basketball machine.

edit: mcHappy beat me to it. Great minds something something.

Fools something something.

lol

[grindhouse]

Hi, Stevo here, recently joined the forums and not too long ago engaged in a long and detailed conversation with other forumnites here about the necessity of a "superstar" to win a championship.

I was the first to state I clearly felt a superstar was needed to win championships in today's NBA.

However, less then 8 hours ago, the San Antonio Spurs proved me wrong. I'm so happy to have been wrong.

A collection of good basketball players playing the way the game was meant to be played; as a team.

The initial argument stemmed from how to make the Raptors in to a championship team, and I dismissed the fact that Spurs were, simply because I thought it was unrealistic for a team in today's NBA to take the throne without that "guy", who could take over games and strike fear in to opposing coaches. A superstar can have that quality of being unguardeble, where a team rarely has that same trait.

The Spurs have shown me otherwise, and though I still don't think the Raptors should try to emulate the Spurs (for a variety of reasons) I gotta say it is insanely refreshing that the Spurs won in the way that they did.

It's true. In a superstar driven league, superstars are not ABSOLUTELY necessary to win championships.

Thanks Spurs.

what you need is smart basketball players for 3 games striaght the spur riped the heat apart with their sets. it wasnt just the sets it was making the right read off the set. They went under the screen they hit the shot they trapped they moved the ball before the trap was effective, solid screens,cuts. tactical destroyed them.

[JawsGT]

The best team beat the team with the best player. Perhaps it's arguable whether the Spurs currently have a superstar on their roster, but I don't think it's arguable that the Spurs have superstar pedigree. Duncan was a superstar, and currently plays like an all-star. The same can probably be said of PArker and Ginobili. Leonard is perhaps a superstar in the making, and may only be so because of that superstar pedigree he is surrounded by. On another team, he may just be a good role player.

Nonetheless, I agree with the OP. The Spurs won not because of a single players dominance, but due to the dominance of the system they play. The collective effort of a bunch of good to great players, playing smart ball within the system in place and within their individual roles, was way too much for the best player on the planet and his collection of super-friends.

It is absolutely refreshing and lends hope that a team of good to great guys playing smart ball within a system that thrives on getting a good shot each possession can achieve the greatest success in the league. The Raptors may not be able to emulate the Spurs longevity of success (or anyone else for that matter), but they can certainly emulate their approach to playing basketball. That certainly wouldn't guarantee a championship, but should enable the franchise to achieve more success than they have had in the past.

[JawsGT]

Also, the Heat's defense over the past few games was brutal. Wade was like Harden last night and LBJ didn't have the same defensive impact he usually does.

[Letter N]

Duncan used to be a superstar, he's just old
Parker is a superstar, he just doesn't play that much
Leonard could become a superstar, he's just young
Bonner is a superstar, he's the Red Rocket!

[mcHAPPY]

Also, the Heat's defense over the past few games was brutal. Wade was like Harden last night and LBJ didn't have the same defensive impact he usually does.

That is because the ball moves faster than even Lebron!!!

[stooley]

Noone's saying it's easy to win a championship. But it is possible to beat a team with a top 2 player without a top 5, or really even a top ten player.

[Stevo]

Gonna be nuts if a bunch of teams start thinking they can do it the Spurs way. It arguably took a combination of Duncan, Parker, and Ginobli in their prime showing mad respect to Pop for the Spurs to be able to get NBA quality players to do it in the way the Spurs won this year.

That's like a 6-10 year plan minimum.

I thought the "super friends" was a rare thing.

Oh, and I give more credit to the Spurs offense then discredit the Heat's defense. Not saying the Heat's D was good, but holy moly the Spurs would've beaten an all-star team with that kind of ball movement.

[stooley]

Gonna be nuts if a bunch of teams start thinking they can do it the Spurs way. It arguably took a combination of Duncan, Parker, and Ginobli in their prime showing mad respect to Pop for the Spurs to be able to get NBA quality players to do it in the way the Spurs won this year.

That's like a 6-10 year plan minimum.

I thought the "super friends" was a rare thing.

Winning a championship is a rare thing.

[stooley]

The reaction to the Spurs' win shouldn't be, oh, great! We don't need a superstar to win, this is gonna be easy!

But it does show that there are alternate paths, and that everything doesn't hinge on the acquisition of a superstar in his prime.

It's still incredibly difficult to win a championship and requires a lot of luck and fine tuning, so fingers crossed that we're taking the first steps down that long road.

[OptimalOptimist]

The heat without Lebron is just plain horrible. They loose all their offensive/defensive rhythm when he plays on the bench. When he comes back, the other team has gained confidence and the heat is startled.

What this finals showed is that depth rattles teams that relies on stardom to win.

[JimiCliff]

Yeah, if you don't have a superstar you just need a former superstar with all-star wingmen and a core that has been together for 12 years with one of the best coaches in history during that time plus another 5 years.

Piece of cake.

Sure, this might be true.

But...to my eyes, the most important factor in the Spurs taking the title this year was the offensive system that was only recently put into place. Remember, Duncan, Parker and Manu hadn't won in seven year, and before last year, they hadn't even really come close in about five - in spite of the fact the that they were obviously younger in each of those years.

To me, the Spurs looked more like a college team with the way that they were moving the ball, constantly curling off of screens + cutting backdoor...night and day when compared to conventional, iso-heavy, "horns"-centric NBA offences.

My hope is that...

a) This shift in philosophy was as instrumental in the Spurs winning this title as all of the reasons Matt mentioned above,

and

b) Others have been taking note, and we've just witnessed the beginning of a gestalt shift in the way NBA teams approach their offence.