Now that Detroit has won the finals... - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

Murphy3 · 06-15-2004, 10:56 PM

Is it possible to slow down just a bit on saying that you have to have the best player in the league or one of the top 2-3 best players in the league to win the title? Detroit obviously doesn't/didn't. So yes, it is possible for a team such as the Mavs to win a title even without the best player in the league.

Simon2 · 06-15-2004, 11:03 PM

Yes. But they need to play better defense. Hard work always pays off.

Psychedelic Fuzz · 06-16-2004, 12:17 AM

My thoughts exactly Murph.

The defensive oriented team won...err... by scoring a hundred points. I think the point to be taken here is not just that defense wins titles, but that deep, cohesive teams in which everyone contributes can win titles.

Also interesting that an eastern team couldn't win until it acquired a western conference big gun.

dalmations202 · 06-16-2004, 07:20 AM

Quote:

I think the point to be taken here is not just that defense wins titles, but that deep, cohesive teams in which everyone contributes can win titles.

Exactly -- but let me add, "in which everyone contributes" on both ends of the floor "win titles".

Stressboy · 06-16-2004, 10:05 AM

Don't get carried away. Detroit got a little lucky. The best two players in league got beaten by the Lakers who had the 3rd and 4th best players and the matchup's just did not go the Lakers way. If Fisher does not pull that shot out of his butt in game 5 against the Spurs, or if any of the PG's for Minny had been healthy, this might be a moot point.

This Detroit team is much like the other two championship teams from Detroit in that they found a time when the best players did not have enough talent around them when it mattered most or the best player Shaq is in the first stages of his decent. Will they win again next year? I don't know, but I somehow do not think a dynasty has been born.

Stressboy

Bayliss · 06-16-2004, 10:33 AM

Stress, I agree.

But there is one thing that does revolve around the championship teams of the last 15 years: they are a good/great defensive team. From the bad boys to MJ's Bulls, to the Lakers, to Duncan's Spurs, to now Detroit. Some have more offense than others, but all of them could "clamp down" on their opponent when they needed to. And the "clamps" would last 5-6 minute stretches that would completely annihilate the opponent.

So the key to the Mavs (and every other team) is you have to be a good defensive team for stretches. And you have to have a decent offense. to counteract the opponent.

(The only reason SA lost is because their defense was the same, their offense this year went south in the playoffs.)

madape · 06-16-2004, 10:38 AM

You need to play well on both sides of the ball in order to win a championship. Being a one-dimensional team ensures you an early exit. Whether that dimension be purely offensive or purely defensive, it doesn't matter. You need both to be successful. The Pistons were great not only defensively in this series, but offensively as well. Don't overlook the offensive contributions of guys like Hamilton, Billups, Rasheed Wallace, and Tayshawn Prince. If they weren't able to hit the open shots they had, the Pistons wouldn't have made it this far.

mavsman55 · 06-16-2004, 10:52 AM

This just comes to prove that you can't buy a championship after all. The main reason Detroit was able to pull this off is that they had the right mindset all year long. They had no effort lapses like Dallas did, they always put out 110%, and they actually like and care about each other unlike LA. LA had no chance against this team considering they all hate each other. They never really played together as a team on a consistent basis... it was more times than none just one player taking over. Basically, this series was a recipe for disaster for LA, and my hat goes off to Detroit. They are the definition of a great team.

Stressboy · 06-16-2004, 01:23 PM

Bayliss,

The Spurs were a much weaker defensive team this year because Robinson was a great shot blocker that got star no-calls when he would foul. Neterovic provides less help on D than Raef.

For the rest,

I was not defending the no D Mavs, but instead the concept of stars win the NBA. If Detroit wins more than 1 then I'll be stunned, but not shocked. If they win 3 I'll be flabergasted.

Also, Mavsman55, it is harder to buy a championship in the NBA because of the power a single player can exert on the outcome of a game and series but it does happen. In the case of LA, it happens for them because top 5 players want to play in LA and things like Shaq leaving Orlando happen. For the rest, it is about getting lucky in the draft and having a healthy team playing well at the right time. Oh and you have to have the little evil gnome on your side.

Stressboy

Bayliss · 06-16-2004, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Bayliss,

The Spurs were a much weaker defensive team this year because Robinson was a great shot blocker that got star no-calls when he would foul. Neterovic provides less help on D than Raef.

But personally, I think it showed up more on offense than on defense. With Robinson, he had declined dramatically, but he was still a valuable offensive weapon at times. Rasho never gave them anything consistently in the playoffs. And throw in the fact that Malik Rose was used a lot during the postseason and was a good offensive player combined with Robinson as their center. From those two last year, they got over 15 points, and 12 boards. Did they get that this year from Rasho and Horry? And throw in Stephen Jackson "run" as a good 3 point threat... and Kerr for that matter. Their offense made their defense better.

I still believe they could've beated the Lakers if Duncan had more consistent help on offense.

Quote:

For the rest,

I was not defending the no D Mavs, but instead the concept of stars win the NBA. If Detroit wins more than 1 then I'll be stunned, but not shocked. If they win 3 I'll be flabergasted.

Stars do win to a certain degree. But if the Mavs never get a so called "star" then they best find a model like the Sonics in the 70's(?) or the Pistons of this year or years past.

Stressboy · 06-16-2004, 03:26 PM

I think the model you are talking about will win you a championship once every 14-15 years. That is when the stars and moon align to have no dominant players with well rounded/healthy teams. If you get lucky and squeeze a title out of a bunch like the Pistons then you just got lucky. Hell, Portland and Sac both should have won titles instead of the Lakers and I think both of those teams would have destroyed this years Pistons (would Rasheed play himself [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img] ). Timing is everything sometimes except when the little evil gnome screws you.

Stressboy

kingrex · 06-17-2004, 08:54 AM

I think attributing winning an NBA championship to mostly "luck" is a bit disingenious. This Pistons team, as a team, acheived the ultimate NBA goal through great team defense and timely offense. Not to say that luck is a no-factor, but let's not diminish what they've done.

I do agree though that having a "superstar" on your team gives you a better chance of winning it all, but this Piston franchise got all the pieces necessary to get the job done this year without the proverbial "superstar".