bullsh**, even i as a laker fan say the pistons 2004 titile was not a fluke. They shut down teams to freaking 60 points normally, that isn't a fluke.
I agree with parts of it... but then I disagree with parts of it as well. Although I will say that is one of the few good "articles" I've read from RealGM recently.
That's a pretty good article. Haven't read one like that in a while... Good find, ballahollic!! :happy0144:
I agree, the Pistons title was definately not a fluke. It was 5 players, a good bench, a hall of fame coach, and a whole lot of chemestry among each other.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SunnyD @ Jul 28 2006, 01:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I agree, the Pistons title was definately not a fluke. It was 5 players, a good bench, a hall of fame coach, and a whole lot of chemestry among each other.</div>Exactly. To call a team that dominated a team with two of these "SuperDuperStars" and two hall of famers, with a Hall of Fame coach themselves a fluke is stupid. The Pistons won with heart, and hard work.
This is pretty interesting however do you really call Tim Duncan a superduperstar? He's a great player don't get me wrong but does he go up there with Wade? How about Pistons vs. Lakers as mentioned earlier Pistons weren't dominated by one player, slightly led by Chauncey Billups however all the players played a big part in it. It is an interesting idea, and it is true that a super star is a huge addition to a team, an example is Dwayne Wade. No doubt about this being a good theory however it has its loopholes.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GArenas @ Jul 29 2006, 01:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>This is pretty interesting however do you really call Tim Duncan a superduperstar? He's a great player don't get me wrong but does he go up there with Wade? How about Pistons vs. Lakers as mentioned earlier Pistons weren't dominated by one player, slightly led by Chauncey Billups however all the players played a big part in it. It is an interesting idea, and it is true that a super star is a huge addition to a team, an example is Dwayne Wade. No doubt about this being a good theory however it has its loopholes.</div>No doubt TD is a superduper star. I am a bit stunned that anyone would suggest that he's not..... i cant even back my statement up, i am so shocked.
I agree with this theory. IMO, on every team, there should be one guy that is considered "the leader". Like on the Bulls win they won it all, it was MJ, and on the Lakers win they won the 3-peat, it was Shaq who was the clear leader. And win the spurs won their 3 rings, Tim Duncan was the leader all 3 years. On everyteam that wins a championship, there should be a great player surrounded with talented players that know their roles.An exception is the pistons of course when they won it all. They just had 5 good starters and i guess that was enough. But you dont see that situation very often...
yea but the pistons was the only team to do that.Plus they got what 5 allstars Prince can become one... but ok 4 allstars come on. They also had people on the bench that are starters EX. James and okurso imo the pistons dont count.The way teams are set up now you dont need one. All the superduperstars are on teams that have no help for themA.IPaulRay allenkobelebrontmacIts not easy haven a superduperstar and then players to help them
I don't think the reason those players won so many championships was because you absolutely need a top 5 player on your team, but rather they all had fantastic teammates (Kareem had Magic, Bird had McHale and the rest, Jordan had Pip, Shaq had Kobe and Wade, etc..). I think the reason for those numbers i the fact that it is MUCH easier to build around a top 5 talent and have a championship caliber team rather than build a very rare team with VERY good players, no real weak spots in rotation, but no ture superstar. That is what happenned with the Pistons, it wasn't that they were a fluke, but a very rare breed.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BuLLzDoMaIn @ Jul 29 2006, 01:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>and to add to that. Billups is a superstar. Ben wallace is a kinda superstar.</div>i think the term superstar get thrown around too loosely. EG. ray allen, billups , ben wallace the are all stars but i dont thinkthey are super stars.(and im a seattle fan and i love ray)I think a super star is someone that will always be remembered for being great. Reggie mille was as good or better than the above mentioned players and now that he's gone NO-ONE calls him a superstar. Enough !!!! stars yes!!!! super stars?? not as many of these as people like to say! superduperstars????? well MJ, Majic, wilt, Big O, people like that and super duper and that list is very very small!!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (clangus @ Jul 29 2006, 05:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>i think the term superstar get thrown around too loosely. EG. ray allen, billups , ben wallace the are all stars but i dont thinkthey are super stars.(and im a seattle fan and i love ray)I think a super star is someone that will always be remembered for being great. Reggie mille was as good or better than the above mentioned players and now that he's gone NO-ONE calls him a superstar. Enough !!!! stars yes!!!! super stars?? not as many of these as people like to say! superduperstars????? well MJ, Majic, wilt, Big O, people like that and super duper and that list is very very small!!</div>Add Shaq, Duncan and kobe onto that list.
