NBA evolution

[Mess]

A lot of his points don't really make much sense but he just moves on to the next one so you don't think about them too much. Interesting I guess.

[Mess]

Trend is nothing. empty words. marketing.

Talent still wins regular season. and will forever.

The team, that maximizes the output of the roster (WHOLE) not the output of the stars wins titles.
that's the reason why Pop is so great - he doesn't care about "trends". He doesn't care about small ball, he doesn't care about stars and superstars. What he cares about - every player on the team must be a threat on offense and not liability on defence. No players you can cheat on and no players that cheat on the team.

Yep, you need coaches who maximize the talent, GM's to get the talent, and players to buy into it all.

But that would have been a much shorter article.

[Cross]

absolutely

[Cross]

I don't disagree with you, but using San Antonio to support your argument is a slippery slope.

It's really easy for Pop to not care about superstars or trends, when his team is built on superstars and dominant wing play.

Superstars (or even just stars, at this point in their careers): Duncan, Parker, Ginobli, Aldridge, Leonard

Wings: Leonard, Ginobli, Green

Only LA came to SAS as a star. And only Duncan was drafted as a star to be.

and i firmly believe Pop was the main reason the rest of the list have label "star" attached.

[CalgaryRapsFan]

Only LA came to SAS as a star. And only Duncan was drafted as a star to be.

and i firmly believe Pop was the main reason the rest of the list have label "star" attached.

But you were using Pop's not caring about superstars or trends as a reason why other coaches shouldn't, but they don't have the luxury of trotting out multiple superstars, stars and veteran-former-stars that he does. It's like saying that because some billionaire says that you don't need to worry about money, everybody else should stop worrying about money; easy for the billionaire to say, not so much for everybody else who's just struggling to get by.

[slaw]

Yep, you need coaches who maximize the talent, GM's to get the talent, and players to buy into it all.

But that would have been a much shorter article.

And, at the top, you need an ownership group that believes in management's plans and vision and provides them with the resources to make it happen.

A better, more progressive coach, would find ways to get more out of this roster as a whole.

Maybe. That's what Memphis and Chicago and OKC all thought when they hired progressive new coaches, too.

[Cross]

is he getting stars to follow the trend? No
is he creating stars to make jersey sales? No
is he creating stars to win championship? No

is he building a TEAM to win championship? Hell, yes

Pop has a TEAM vision, he gets proper character guy he believes can buy into it. Next he puts the guy in position to succeed. Trusts him. PLAYS him.

becoming a star in such system is by-product of coach's approach to the game, it's not initial goal. The fact, that almost every player under such approach gets labeled "star", speaks highly about productivity of the system.

[octothorp]

Popovich and Buford have been running largely the same system and vision for a decade or more, and I don't think you can argue (as the author of the S.I. piece does) that only now, other teams are trying to replicate this. San Antonio executives and assistant coaches have to be the most sought-after in the league, not simply because they're great individual basketball minds, but because teams have been trying for years to 'crack' the code of how to be like San Antonio.

Bad teams get high draft picks. They draft potential superstars. And then almost immediately, the 'this team is going to be in the finals in a few years' rhetoric starts. But all that's happened is that they're now a bad team with a superstar. The reality is that building a playoff team (let alone a championship-contending team) is damn hard, and some great basketball minds fail at it. There is nobody in the league who's just now thinking, 'hmmm, maybe we should be more like San Antonio or Golden State.'

I guess I'm kinda baffled by what this writer is trying to say. I don't really believe there's any sort of sea-change going on in the league. There will always be bad teams with superstars, and good teams with superstars, and bad teams without superstars, and great team without superstars.

[Barolt]

San Antonio hasn't ran the same system though. The ran an inside out team around Duncan and the Admiral, ranking 24th in 3pt attempt rate.

Four years later, they won the title as a 3pt shooting team, ranking 7th in 3pt attempts around Ginobili, Kerr, Stephen Jackson, Steve Smith and Bruce Bowen with Duncan in the middle.

Then two years later they won the title on a lower 3pt rate again, but a dominant defense(1st in the league in DRtg).

Then two years after that they were back up to 6th in the league in 3pt rate.

And two years ago they won the title as a top ten pace team, after winning all their other titles as a bottom ten pace team.

Now this year they're playing slow with a dominant defense again.

San Antonio doesn't have 'one system', they have the right system for their personnel. Every time.