I think it's Chemistry. How well your team gels and plays together. Some would say defense, but I think it's chemistry.
I agree with chemistry, but I think a clear leader is too. Someone whose outspoken and is really the leader of the team.
To me the most important would be both team chem and defense. You guys need to have good communication out there, so there won't be any mistakes when doing defense. Team chem is good cause then no one would be arguing at each other and everyone is happy with what everyone is doing. If the team chem is bad it can bring down a team's chances. Also if the team's defense isn't as great they can let the opposing team score a lot of points.
Name me the last team who won a championship without a dominant big man. The Bulls in '98? Even then, those teams were completely different since they had Jordan. Without any Jordan teams, because having MJ would transcend having any great big man, and it's the 1990 Pistons. Shaq, Duncan, Olajuwon, etc, without them the Lakers, Spurs, Rockets, Heat, never win championships.
Defense and Rebounding. Without the offense you don't have a chance to do well to start with. For example the Bulls.
Having everything.And that's not a joke. I don't think one thing stands out and says this is important to winning a title. Because I feel everything needs fall into place chemisty wise, offensively and defensively. If you don't have one of those things, your not going to win a championship imo. Everything is a component in winning a title. It's like a house of cards. Take one of those cards away, and it crumbles.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yankshater213 @ Jan 20 2007, 06:08 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Name me the last team who won a championship without a dominant big man. The Bulls in '98? Even then, those teams were completely different since they had Jordan. Without any Jordan teams, because having MJ would transcend having any great big man, and it's the 1990 Pistons. Shaq, Duncan, Olajuwon, etc, without them the Lakers, Spurs, Rockets, Heat, never win championships.</div>Dennis Rodman? Does he count? He is like Ben Wallace, he was dominant at getting boards and he was a strong defender, but Rodman was undersized. I don't know if he counts as a big man. But the years that MJ had Horace Grant instead of Rodman, they didn't have a dominant big man.
D, and a great big man. A good big man opens things up for everybody. If you get a great big man and surround him with some OK shooters that can play D you'll go far. Dump it to the big man, let them double and then you shoot away.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yankshater213 @ Jan 20 2007, 06:08 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Name me the last team who won a championship without a dominant big man. The Bulls in '98? Even then, those teams were completely different since they had Jordan. Without any Jordan teams, because having MJ would transcend having any great big man, and it's the 1990 Pistons. Shaq, Duncan, Olajuwon, etc, without them the Lakers, Spurs, Rockets, Heat, never win championships.</div>exactly..the list goes ona few more areBill Russell (Boston)George Mikan (LA)Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (LA)Jack Sikma (SEA)etc.
what about the pistons in 04? they didn't have a dominant big man. Rasheed was decent, but there was no denying that there offense was perimeter oriented.I believe it's heart. Because if you have the talent, the chemistry, the defense, all that, but no one wants to win, it won't work.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (nba dogmatist @ Jan 20 2007, 02:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>what about the pistons in 04? they didn't have a dominant big man. Rasheed was decent, but there was no denying that there offense was perimeter oriented.I believe it's heart. Because if you have the talent, the chemistry, the defense, all that, but no one wants to win, it won't work.</div>Still though, they had a two headed monster in Sheed and Wallace, arguably one of the best scoring/rebounding big men combos we have seen in a long time. Lets just look at this more in depth:2006 Finals: Miami Heat (Shaq) def. Dallas Mavericks (Dirk) 4-2.2005 Finals: San Antonio Spurs (Duncan) def. Detroit Pistons (Sheed/Wallace) 4-3.2004 Finals: Detroit Pistons (Sheed/Wallace) def. Los Angeles Lakers (Shaq) 4-1.2003 Finals: San Antonio Spurs (Duncan) def. New Jersey Nets (can you consider K-Mart here? 17/8 that year) 4-2.2002 Finals: Los Angeles Lakers (Shaq) def. New Jersey Nets (no big man, swept. coincidence?) 4-0.2001 Finals: Los Angeles Lakers (Shaq) def. Philadelphia 76ers (Motumbo/Ratliff had very very good years) 4-1.2000 Finals: Los Angeles Lakers (Shaq) def. Indiana Pacers (Dale Davis??? haha averaged a double double) 4-2.1999 Finals: San Antonio Spurs (Duncan) def. New York Knicks (Ewing) 4-1. The list goes on... Bulls with Rodman, Jazz with Malone, Sonics with Kemp, Rockets with Olajuwon, Magic with Shaq, Suns with Barkely.
I honestly can't think of one thing you need the most. Like most people have mentioned you need chemistry but there's so many components I can think of that are necessary. I mean I think you need a good bench, veteran leadership, a dominant big man, a player that can take over the game for his team when needed, etc. There's not one thing there that I think you need more than any other.
Having a Dominant bigman isn't a sure thing though, that bigman needs good teammates and shooters to keep from being quadruple teamed all the time. The Greatest bigman of alltime, Wilt Chamberlain only has two rings. In those two years, he was on great great great teams with brilliant teammates. That's the most important thing. That, defense, rebounding, chemistry, a good coach and ROLE PLAYERS. Gotta have those role players.
I would think the team would have to have at least 2 star calibur players. I don't know the last team that won it that didn't.
