"Every team needs a star..." (February 25, 1998)

Everyone  agrees that you need talent to win in the NBA.  Sure, you need to be  able  to  defend,  shoot,  run,  etc.   But  I  was just thinking, when comparing  a  team  like  the  L.A. Lakers who have a collection of awesome talent,  or  even  the New York Knicks, to teams like Chicago and Utah, you have to wonder, which teams have more talent.

Here's  what  I'm trying to say, Chicago has two great players and two very good  players.   Then  they  have a collection of single skill players, and maybe  a couple of decent NBA players.  Utah also has two great players and one  really good player, then the rest of their team is average skill wise. The  L.A.  Lakers  are  8  to 9 players deep with talent.  The Knicks, even after  Ewing  went  down,  have some pretty talented players, and are deep. But why do teams like Utah and Chicago win and teams like L.A. and New York don't? 

I  think the Superstar variable should be introduced early on.  Houston won with  Hakeem Olajuwon and a bunch of scrubs for his first year and then for his second, it was Hakeem and Clyde Drexler and even a poorer collection of talent.   Superstars  have  a  way  to  raise their game to the next level. Also,  most  superstars  have  that  will to win which is required.  No one wants  to  win  more than Michael Jordan, and I don't think as long Michael Jordan  plays,  any  team  will  be  able to beat the Bulls in a seven game series.   I think the only real chance Chicago has to lose in the playoffs, is if Chicago plays a really good team in the first round and maybe Chicago might  not be able to get into a groove quick enough, but that isn't likely to  happen.   Of the last three championship teams, like Bulls, the Houston Rockets  and the Detroit Pistons (which seems like a century ago), they all had  a  superstar  who  could take over a game as well as one above average player  who could take that last second shot and reduce the pressure on the star.   Mike has his Scottie, Hakeem had his Clyde and Isiah Thomas had his Joe  Dumars.   These  teams  were  similar  in  the  sense that they lacked individual  talent.  Sure one or two players were great, but the players on the whole weren't dominant players.   They all were role players who played with in the system.

Isn't  that  the  key,  a  good  system (both offensively and defensively), players  who  fit into the system and then players who buy into the system. I  will  take  Chicago's vaunted triangle offense as a example.  Tex Winter created  this  offense in the 1950s to counteract his teams lack of talent. He  made  a  system  which required smart players who, although weren't the athletically  superior,  could  pass,  move  without the ball and make open shots.  The Bulls surrounded Jordan and Pippen in role players who could do the  necessary things to win.  Steve Kerr, and his predecessor John Paxson, would  never  star  on  a  team,  but  became  important  cogs in the Bulls championship  teams.   Players  like  Dennis  Rodman  and Horace Grant were active  defensive players who were great rebounders, but neither were great scorers.   The  numerous  Bulls centers were good passers and made the open basket  when  necessary, as well, they did give up their body and their six fouls.

Philadelphia  is  loading  up  on talent.  As is Washington.  None of these teams  really  have gelled.  New Jersey is making a move, but they may have too many players who want the ball.  Jayson Williams is a great player.  He rebounds  and  plays  defense and scores of putbacks and gets dirty points. Keith  Van Horne is a star in waiting and Sam Cassell is a gunner without a conscious.  Kerry Kittles carries himself quietly and puts up good numbers, but Chris Gatling and Kendall Gill are both scorers.  Both require the ball and  sulk  without  it.   Most  teams  don't thrive when they have too many players who require the ball to score.

John  Stockton doesn't need the ball to score, he distributes.  Karl Malone requires  the  ball down low to score.  Jeff Hornacek is the shooter.  This should be a recipe for success for most teams.  Get a point guard who has a pass  first mentality.  It's much easier to live that way.  But in this day and  age,  most  point guards are scorers as well as distributors.  One can point  to  Isiah Thomas as the creator of the scorer point guard, or you go back farther to Oscar Robinson, but most players these days know of the Big O,  unless  you  mention  Oliver  Miller.  Zeke was one of the first scorer point  guards,  but  unlike the present day hogs, he did pass and more than just  to  get  an assist.  He was relatively unselfish and played on a team that was also unselfish.

Maybe  that's  the  key.   Unselfishness.  You need a team that understands that  scoring a basket is the most important thing, not who does it or how, but  getting the two, or three, is the most important thing every time they go  down  the  court.   Even  with Jordan and Pippen, Chicago is unselfish. They  pass,  get  Longley the ball down low early, or try to get Harper his shots as well.  Utah does the same thing.  Seattle does its best to include all  their  players (except Jim McIlvaine) on offense.  These teams realize winning  is  everything,  not  points.  I'm not knocking players like Allan Iverson  or  Glenn Robinson.  They are the best players on their team.  And they  probably  think,  and rightly so, if more they score the better their chance  of  winning.   I think stats don't always tell the whole story.  If Iverson  comes  down  court, drives the lane and dishes the ball out to the guard,  we'll say Aaron McKie at 18 feet, the double team has already found Iverson.  The defense will rotate out to McKie.  McKie passes down the open man  on  the baseline for the easy deuce.  Now, I'm not saying Iverson (and others) will only make the pass that will end up on SportsCenter, CNN/SI or NBA  Inside  Stuff,  but  I think they might be more willing to make a play that  ends  up  on the stat sheet instead of the score board.  Good passing and team work does account points that aren't always shown on a stat sheet.

Winning  teams  don't care who gets what.  The best players will always get theirs.  Jordan gets 30 a night.  Sometimes he gets 20 when there is a blowout  and  he  sits  early.   Sometimes he gets 45 when he's hot.  Sometimes Rodman  gets  8 assists and sometimes Longley gets 20 points.  It's the way it  goes.   Every  team  needs  a 'go to' guy, but he doesn't need the ball every time down.

That player, or for that matter, all players have to buy into the offensive system,  so  they believe they have a chance at winning.  Character players are  important.   Players who have the will to win.  Players who don't rock the boat.  Players who are intelligent are important to winning.  It's rare for  a  young team to win a championship.  Veteran teams win championships. Will  the  L.A.  Lakers  win  it  this  year?  I don't know.  They have the talent, but don't seem to be able to keep it consistent.  They seem to have a  problem who is the go to guy and the ball is distributed unevenly.  On a team  with  the single largest most imposing force in all of sports, you've got  to wonder what the hell Del Harris is thinking.  The only go to guy of logic, is Mr. O'Neal.  He should get the ball in crunch time and that's it. He  may  miss  some  free throws, but at least you know he gets to the line often,  it's  better  than Nick Van Exel or Kobe Bryant chucking up a three with 1.2 seconds left from 28 feet.

Return to the 1998 edition of Hoop-LA

Return to Hoop-LA Home Page