A discussion on the history of building championship teams

by studdeir on Nov 27, 2008 1:01 PM CST Comment 21 comments

With many people voicing the opinion that everyone is untouchable except rose, and that they would like to dump the majority of our roster, I have been wondering how championship teams were assembled in the past.

Some questions to ask yourself about championship teams of the past are:

1. What styles of play were successful during that time?

2. What types of players were successful during that time?

3. What rules were in effect during that time, and how do they differ today?

4. What players were on these championship teams?

What was there role?
What point in their career where they?
How were they acquired (trade, draft, signing)?
How did they interact with their teammates?

5. What coaches did the team have, and how effective where they in developing players, drawing up crucial plays, and making a team execute/?

6. How much of a role did the GM play in the creation of the team? Were his draft choices sound? Did he make smart trades? Did he make smart signings?

These questions should guide us to a thorough discussion of what championship teams looked like, and how they were developed.

Here is a list of championship teams:

2007-08	Boston Celtics	Los Angeles Lakers	4-2
2006-07	San Antonio Spurs	Cleveland Cavaliers	4-0
2005-06	Miami Heat	Dallas Mavericks	4-2
2004-05	San Antonio Spurs	Detroit Pistons	4-3
2003-04	Detroit Pistons	Los Angeles Lakers	4-1
2002-03	San Antonio Spurs	New Jersey Nets	4-2
2001-02	Los Angeles Lakers	New Jersey Nets	4-0
2000-01	Los Angeles Lakers	Philadelphia 76ers	4-1
1999-00	Los Angeles Lakers	Indiana Pacers	4-2
1998-99	San Antonio Spurs	New York Knicks	4-1
1997-98	Chicago Bulls	Utah Jazz	4-2
1996-97	Chicago Bulls	Utah Jazz	4-2
1995-96	Chicago Bulls	Seattle SuperSonics	4-2
1994-95	Houston Rockets	Orlando Magic	4-0
1993-94	Houston Rockets	New York Knicks	4-3
1992-93	Chicago Bulls	Phoenix Suns	4-2
1991-92	Chicago Bulls	Portland Trail Blazers	4-2
1990-91	Chicago Bulls	Los Angeles Lakers	4-1
1989-90	Detroit Pistons	Portland Trail Blazers	4-1
1988-89	Detroit Pistons	Los Angeles Lakers	4-0
1987-88	Los Angeles Lakers	Detroit Pistons	4-3
1986-87	Los Angeles Lakers	Boston Celtics	4-2
1985-86	Boston Celtics	Houston Rockets	4-2
1984-85	Los Angeles Lakers	Boston Celtics	4-2
1983-84	Boston Celtics	Los Angeles Lakers	4-3
1982-83	Philadelphia 76ers	Los Angeles Lakers	4-0
1981-82	Los Angeles Lakers	Philadelphia 76ers	4-2
1980-81	Boston Celtics	Houston Rockets

To be honest, many parts of this discussion will be out of my league, since I'm 21 and have only been following the bulls since MJ.

Still I think this discussion should prove very useful.

For example can anyone think of a championship team where both the PG and SG where averaging 20 PPG? I think both Gordon and Rose can, but it seems like a lot of emphasis/money on the back court. I guess manu/parker and hamilton/billups come close, but they had much more dependable big men and role players.

So what do you think? Go through your favorite championship teams, I think you will find that we are a long way off in terms of players, coaching, and attitude.

FanPosts are user-created posts from the BlogABull community, and are to be treated as the opinions and views of that particular user, not that of the blogger or blog community as a whole.

0 recs | Comment 21 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

of course we are a long way off

why do you think most of us want to dump anyone except Rose

by gobulls1124 on Nov 27, 2008 1:22 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Deng play has sucked this year

but he is still a keeper unless Bron wants to be the 2nd coming of MJ.

Homecoming

by illwill on Nov 27, 2008 1:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

isaiah thomas and joe dumars

where the marquee players for the pistons back to back wins in 89-90

by CJOliveira on Nov 27, 2008 2:07 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Yeah but they also had KEY role players

like Laimbeer for example

by dannyp07 on Nov 27, 2008 2:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

And Vinnie Johnson

And Mark Aguirre, John Salley, Dennis Rodman. A great coach in Chuck Daly, the luck to have gelled right at the end of the Celtics’ dominance and before the Bulls’ run started.

So many things have to go right to win a title, we often take it for granted because of how spoiled we were in the 90s. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but a lot has to work in your favor to even make the Finals.

"It never is, because I'm the Shogun. And before you get to the Shogun, you gotta go through a lot of ninjas."

by Ozzie Montana on Nov 27, 2008 2:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree 100% with you

he asked if a team centerd around its 1-2 guards had ever won a championship,

i just gave him one example

by CJOliveira on Nov 27, 2008 2:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

yea i think the only caveat i would put in there was that dumars was a defensive stopper wasn’t he? he was the one responsible for containing jordan right? more or less successful right? do you think gordon could ever do that kind of work on kobe or d-wade?

by studdeir on Nov 27, 2008 4:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

could noc or noah be an enforcer? i don't think so. noc is too small, noah is too wiry.

by studdeir on Nov 27, 2008 4:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

were* Isiah*

by CJOliveira on Nov 27, 2008 2:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

and btw i agree that luck plays a big role, but for perennial contenders like the spurs, i think there are definable things for teams like us to emulate

by studdeir on Nov 27, 2008 4:11 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

obviously duncan is one of those definables. haha

by studdeir on Nov 27, 2008 4:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Check out my post on this very topic for my thoughts.

http://www.blogabull.com/2008/11/26/670834/building-a-championship-te

It’s called “Building a Championship Team”.

by Unrealcity on Nov 27, 2008 9:53 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

The Lakers won a championship in '72 with West and Goodrich both averaging 25 ppg

Of course, it was a far different game played at a much, much faster pace throughout the league. Still they were the best two players on the team.

We have every right to dream heroic dreams. Those who say that we're in a time when there are no heroes, they just don't know where to look.
Ronald Reagan

by snley on Nov 28, 2008 8:25 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

All team above had at least two star players, a head coach all with swagger, talent, attitude. And some luck

We have a rookie coach with attitude, who might one day down the line developer talent and swagger. We currently have only one player who is a rookie who already has talent, attitude and swagger.

The rest have of the players have marginal talent, no attitude with the exception of Ben Gordon (who is gone after the season), and no swagger. Therefore no points granted from the rest of the team in these key areas outlined at this point.

Therefore, in simply terms we are 4/9 of the way there with no luck yet which should come from the GM.

Danny Ainge .. obtained Garnett and Ray Allen, Pop (w/lots of power) and Riley worked their magic, Dumar, Phil+Kupchak continue to pull off great trades, and we are left with no trigger John Paxson. Big minus!

man up!

by exult463 on Nov 28, 2008 8:01 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

In addition refer to Unrealcity similiar eariler thread in regards to supporting cast

he went into great detail and depth, and I agree on his points.

http://www.blogabull.com/2008/11/26/670834/building-a-championship-te

man up!

by exult463 on Nov 28, 2008 8:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Were the 2003-04 Pistons an exception? No!

The Lakers were not 100%, yet because of the firm leadership of Joe Dumar together with Larry Brown at his highest pinnacle they willed this team to a championship.

Yet they still fit the above critieria I mentioned because many of their starting five did play in all-star games. Actually in one year they had about 4 players on the All Star team. Bulls don’t have that type of talent other than Rose, so no Piston model here. We need another star player, and now there days three doesn’t hurt.

man up!

by exult463 on Nov 28, 2008 8:19 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

correction ... "and now these days three stars doesn’t hurt our chances".

lots more but I’ll just address this one.

man up!

by exult463 on Nov 28, 2008 8:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

D'Antoni... interesting ... Did the Bulls ever really have a chance. No!

I believe he has “Talent”, and “Attitude” and he is nearly there in the “Swagger” category. Therefore he was a ripe plum to be picked by the Bulls? No, they never had any chance ever.. Reinsdorf has a blind spot!

Now the Knicks are almost 3/9 of the way there, if they get Lebron they instantly become 2/3 (or 6/9) of the way there. And luck appears already on their side because Walsh is serious about positioning himself for winning, yet Boston still has the winning formula today. Today the Bulls are higher at 4/9 than the Knicks, but will they get higher than 6/9 or 7/9 before the Knicks?

Everyone talks about D. Rose, and yes he is a star, but if I was in D’Antoni position summer 2008 and I had this criteria for winning which I outlined, I would have also chosen the Knick’s primarily because of Walsh over Paxson. I would have taken the Knicks deal and wouldn’t have even considered the Bulls offer or Reinsdorf ranting if he wasn’t clearing the house of John Paxson and became serious about winning. Walsh looks position to obtain a least one star if not two in 2010, therefore the pressure for D’Antoni to produce doesn’t start for at least another two to three years. Perfect situation, plus more money compared to the pressure cooker Bulls situation where evenually his then potential boss John Paxson will be fired within a year or two.

D’Antoni got smarts! and made the right decision for himself.

man up!

by exult463 on Nov 28, 2008 9:04 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

My main concern with paxson is that our moderate initial success will pad him just long enough to carry through the 2010 summer. which is really bad IMO. he has shown the inability to handle negotiations and signings, and further an inability to sign players for their market value.

by studdeir on Nov 29, 2008 10:21 AM CST reply actions 0 recs