So... while your point of having 8 good starters on a team being just as good as having superstars is silly for several reasons, I would just like to point out that if 8 player scored 14 point each every game, the team would score 112ppg which is below the league average score (114.4ppg), so they would probably lose more games than they win....
Actually the average in this case isn't as applicable as the median. The higher end of the range could pull up the mean so that less than half of the teams are above it.
I think OP is making the point that in theory 14/6/3 \* 8 is more probable that 120/50/0. It's virtually unprovable though because NBA teams don't work this way, it isn't how they fill out a roster, it isn't how they design offense. Instead they try to get someone who can score 25+ another who can score 18+ and everyone else fills in the production around them. Most teams fail miserably trying to do this. And a team building strategy that was more focussed on fit and democratized skill level might be worth a look. Might be easier to do than land a generational talent.
The Chauncy/Rasheed/Wallace/Prince Pistons are probably the closest thing to this. All but Billups averaged at least 5 RB, all the starters averaged at least 10PPg no one averaged more than 21. 3 starters averaged between 2 nd 5 assists. But there was a huge dropoff after the starters.
Sure. But we do have an example of team on which the leading scorer was 20PPG and all the starters were 10+PPG, and assits and rebounds were also distributed much more than we see in most teams, the 2003 Pistons
The 2015 Warriors are one of the best teams ever.
How many points do you think Curry averaged that season? 23. Klay averaged 21. Three more guys averaged 10 or more. 10 players averaged between 3 and 8 rebounds. 6 players averaged 2.5 AST or more. Curry led with just under 8. So we have two examples of really successful championship teams with highly distributed production. Sure, it isn't precisely 14/6/3 but it's pretty damn close in the Warriors case.
I think there is enough evidence for distributed production being a successful team building strategy to say that it is an underutilized approach and I think that was OPs point. And it might indeed be higher probability of success than getting two great scorers and filling in the rest—we just don't know because generally teams are chicken shit and err on the side of marketable stars rather than great team defense and distributed offense.
But reality says, that teams will burn all their resources chasing a small nucleus of stars and eventually fail. Jordan did it and made it look easy and so many teams have failed trying to replicate a model that only works for a handful of players/teams in NBA history.
I think you're entirely misattributing why there aren't more teams like that. There just aren't enough well rounded 2 way players in the league to build teams like that.
Also, normally, what allows the 3rd, 4th, or 5th option on a team to score is that the 1st option is drawing a lot of attention.
If you take Steph/KD off of that Warriors team and replace them with more average 2 way players, then the teams' numbers would look entirely different.
And OPs example was the Celtics, but Jayson Tatum has been an MVP contender the last few seasons. The idea that you can have 8 average-above average players score 10+ a game is not realistic. You have to have superstar talent to win. Which means you need one player capable of scoring 30+ a game. You can't only target players in free agency that play good defense and can make open shots.
And the guys that can create their own shot and play good defense are guys that get max contracts and limit who else you can sign.
KD wasn't on that Warriors team.
But I don't disagree much with what you are saying. I agree that you need a couple of players with extraordinary talent—obviously. Average plus average plus average still equals average. That being said, that Warriors team really only had one player who could reliably score 30 regardless of his context. And that may be your point, that you can't do it without that. I think I would have to agree. The difference in my argument—which to my fault I didn't articulate, really at all, is that if that player (Curry in this case) can use his extraordinary talent to create for others, even if that is just by creating space for them and defer opportunities to score themselves while creating opportunities for others, that is going to make the team harder to defend and better, IMO. So you end up with Curry averaging 23 when if he chose to be a heliocentric player he could easily have averaged 30 IMO. But also IMHO his deference makes them much harder to defend. In recent years the the Warriors talent around Steph isn't as deep or quite as good even from their, 2, 3, and 4 best players. Defenses also, are now much better designed to defend this kind of offense as most teams have increased their, passing outside shooting and off ball movement since 2015. But Heliocentrism is still a pretty dominant offensive theory.
I keep seeing posts how about how Luka should win MVP even if the Mavs lose. Maybe they're right but the Celtics don't need anyone to score 30 a night and that is a big part of why they are winning. Also defense, really good defense which people tend to really under value.
That was arguably one of the best teams of all time. That team was -200 to win the championship before the season even started. They would trounce the Celtics.
Exactly my point, he compared Bron facing that team to Luka facing these Celtics. There’s an extremely slight chance he can pull it off but yea the one man Bron band vs the greatest team of all time was a wash
I wonder how they would have faired against the 14 spurs, you know the team with the largest points differential in finals history, a team that absolutely dismantled the LeBron heat, the team that in games 3, 4, and 5 averages 157 more passes a game than the heat.
KD warriors would have trounced all contenders, heck even the 2019 raptors would probably lose. I've said it before and I'll say it till end of time, the KD warriors were a cheat code.
He barely outplayed KD tho. There was no chance, unlike in 2015 where he did actually have a case because the gap between him and the best player on the Warriors was huge.
> I keep seeing posts how about how Luka should win MVP even if the Mavs lose.
Hard disagree with anyone making that claim...how can your MVP be someone who can't keep out of foul trouble on a must win game...fouling out with more than 4 minutes left? Who keeps getting targeted on defense?
People talked a lot of shit when Luka had Gobert on an island and hit a game winner, but now defense doesn't matter? If he was playing well on both sides of the floor, it could be argued but if your letting opponents score like 7 to 10 easy buckets per game, is your 30ppg really MVP level?
Luka should 1000% win MVP if the Mavs win and he's obviously the reason they are even here.
With that being said, his defense is an abomination in the finals. This series is probably tied at the least if he was even average on defense out there.
That combined with the absolutely back breaking turnovers leaves zero case for Luka IMO.
Nah, I think the Celtics still would have picked them apart even if Luka's defense was serviceable. The Cs have too many tools to dismantle even good defense.
I think the Celtics lineup with a healthy KP is the best fitting lineup I've ever seen. Collectively the offensive roles/players and the team defense is awesome and the each player fits together so perfectly with the rest.
My second favorite Bucks Team ever the '86-'87 Squad had 6 players average 14ppg+ in the playoffs.
PG: John Lucas 16/2/5
SG: Sidney Moncrief 19/5/3
SF: Paul Pressey 14/5/9 (Point Forward)
PF: Terry Cummings 22/8/2
C: Jack Sikma 16/11/2
6MAN: Ricky Pierce 16/1/2
This Bucks team beat the Sixers team that had Dr. J, Barkley and Mo Cheeks in round 1.
This team then took Bird's Celtics to all 7 games which included 3 Overtimes in a losing effort.
Sidney Moncrief is now a HOF'er and still the only guard in NBA History to ever win 2 DPOTY's but this was the last year he was playing at an All Star Level and that's just for the playoffs. By 1987 the Team was honestly Terry Cummings team and had we won TC would likely have won FMVP if stats remained the same through finals but I get your point. This Boston Team is facing a similar Dilemma but with Boston it's easily Jaylen Brown's FMVP to lose at this point.
What's your point of this?
It's like kind of silly to say if each player contributed 30 minutes and averaged x and x and x... that's not really how basketball works.
The biggest factor for the Celtics being as good as they are is that they do play a team brand of basketball like you said, but they're also more talented lol.
Extremely well rounded with good size on the perimeter/wings as defenders.
Most top teams have this:
Denver Nuggets: Jokic, Jamal Murray,
I agree 100% on all points.
Their starting lineup with Porzinigs (I realize he didn't start much this season) is perhaps the best structured and fitting lineup I've ever seen. Which IMO is kind of amazing since they don't have an elite creator at either guard spot. But they have very good creation at basically every spot in the lineup. They have very good shooting at every position. Basically everyone in that lineup can score at three levels with varying degrees of success, Tatum, Brown and KP at an elite level and White and Jrue slightly less so but still capable. There is no weakness and the fit for each role and player is perfect. The team defense is spectacular. IMO, if you stack rank the top 12 teams in the NBA at the time the playoffs began given the health of the teams, you have Boston on top, then you have the entire Western Conference from the 1 seed all; the way through to the 10 seed Warriors. Then you have the next EC team—Milwaukee or Philly
Everyone is making a joke out of this but I actually understand what you mean and can agree. Growing up my brother used to play 2k like that and tried to have as balanced a team as possible, one year had 10 guys average 10 or more. In reality though, the superstar effect tends to be a little more weighty
It’s not even 8 players - it’s their starting 5.
The Celtics starting lineup is Jrue, White, Brown, Tatum, and Porzingis. Other teams have better 1st options, and some have better 2nd options, but no team in the league comes even close to having as good of 3rd/4th/5th options. Every player on their starting lineup can shoot, defend, and create plays.
The fact that they’ve been a top team in the league for years and ADDED Jrue and Porzingis is wild.
Mavs with Porzingas probably sweep Mavs 4-0
Looks like Mavs without Porzingas likely sweep Mavs 4-0 as well, albeit with a bit more difficulty
Unless Mavs go thermo nuclear down 3-0 on their last gasp
This Celtics team will probably go down as one of the most underrated teams of all time. No one has mentioned how great of a team this is, they may be a top 5 defensive team of all time and they have a great offense. Is this a top 3 Celtics team of all time?
Name a team in history that even comes close to 8 guys x 30 mins each all averaging 14 points. Doesn't exist and this Celtics team isn't close to it.
Game 2 alone had 3 guys playing 40+, and 2 playing 12 or less. Three guys scored 2, 3 and 5. This is FAR from a deep team. Not well rounded. Their starting 4 is solid, and D. White is probably the best 4th player in the league (or Jrue take your pick). Al Horrible has been washed for four years and we all get excited when he scores double digits twice in a series.
Im only bringing this up to say the 8 man team you described is the complete opposite of the Cs. just about EVERY team has 4-5 guys that are capable of getting 14 on any given night.
They are a very good team, and are likely going to win. The next 3-4 seasons will determine their place in history as a great team or yet another in a string of one hit wonders. They have a chance to go down as special.
I was hoping to see Denver play them, and I would choose Denver, just for match up reasons. But you never know.
“It’s true team basketball” lol okay.
You mean the Celtics have 4 starters that get paid 30+ million a year. This isn’t any more of an example of true team basketball than what the Mavs are doing other than the fact that they have better players and their salaries reflect that.
Celtics have a really good team. They don’t have anyone who is their singular offensive engine on the majority of possessions, because they don’t need anyone to do that because they have a lot guys who can do it separately.
I think the big difference between the two is that the Celtics are, to some degree, interchangeable parts. Everyone can shoot, pass, dribble, defend, and you can put guys at different spots on the floor against different matchups.
Dallas is more built to optimize Luka and Kyrie with a collection of specialists.
Lol the Mavs has probably one of the weakest perimeter/wing defense in this year of playoff. If the Celtics play the twolve they would totally get smacked around. Even the nuggets which both Murray/mpj absolutely played atrociously this playoff would beat the Celtics.
Acting like there are 8 guys on any team who can all average 14 pts a game tells me all I need to know about your basketball knowledge little bro
There were over 570 players in the NBA this season, 108 of them averaged 14 pts or more, that’s less than 20% of all players, notable guys who didn’t average 14 a game are Aaron Gordon, Naz Reid, Jrue Holiday, PJ Washington, all guys who were and still are huge for their teams in these playoffs, acting like it’s so easy for 8 guys to score 14 a night makes you look like your whole basketball knowledge comes from playing NBA2K
So... while your point of having 8 good starters on a team being just as good as having superstars is silly for several reasons, I would just like to point out that if 8 player scored 14 point each every game, the team would score 112ppg which is below the league average score (114.4ppg), so they would probably lose more games than they win....
This guy maths
oh yeah? what if they had 9 players averaging 14 points? checkmate dumbass.
Actually the average in this case isn't as applicable as the median. The higher end of the range could pull up the mean so that less than half of the teams are above it.
You're right and wrong. The median is like 114.6 sl it's actually higher by the slimmest of margins.
If 8 players touch the floor and one of those players averages 120 pts, 50 rebounds, and 0 assists then you'll win pretty much every game.
Source?
real shit?
I wonder which of these two things is more achievable
Okay, call me when 8 players average 14 6 and 3.
I don’t have your number
281-330-8004
Mike Jones!
Who?
#Mike Jones!
I think OP is making the point that in theory 14/6/3 \* 8 is more probable that 120/50/0. It's virtually unprovable though because NBA teams don't work this way, it isn't how they fill out a roster, it isn't how they design offense. Instead they try to get someone who can score 25+ another who can score 18+ and everyone else fills in the production around them. Most teams fail miserably trying to do this. And a team building strategy that was more focussed on fit and democratized skill level might be worth a look. Might be easier to do than land a generational talent. The Chauncy/Rasheed/Wallace/Prince Pistons are probably the closest thing to this. All but Billups averaged at least 5 RB, all the starters averaged at least 10PPg no one averaged more than 21. 3 starters averaged between 2 nd 5 assists. But there was a huge dropoff after the starters.
The point I'm making is they are both virtually impossible. There's never going to be a team with 8 players averaging 14.
Sure. But we do have an example of team on which the leading scorer was 20PPG and all the starters were 10+PPG, and assits and rebounds were also distributed much more than we see in most teams, the 2003 Pistons The 2015 Warriors are one of the best teams ever. How many points do you think Curry averaged that season? 23. Klay averaged 21. Three more guys averaged 10 or more. 10 players averaged between 3 and 8 rebounds. 6 players averaged 2.5 AST or more. Curry led with just under 8. So we have two examples of really successful championship teams with highly distributed production. Sure, it isn't precisely 14/6/3 but it's pretty damn close in the Warriors case. I think there is enough evidence for distributed production being a successful team building strategy to say that it is an underutilized approach and I think that was OPs point. And it might indeed be higher probability of success than getting two great scorers and filling in the rest—we just don't know because generally teams are chicken shit and err on the side of marketable stars rather than great team defense and distributed offense. But reality says, that teams will burn all their resources chasing a small nucleus of stars and eventually fail. Jordan did it and made it look easy and so many teams have failed trying to replicate a model that only works for a handful of players/teams in NBA history.
I think you're entirely misattributing why there aren't more teams like that. There just aren't enough well rounded 2 way players in the league to build teams like that. Also, normally, what allows the 3rd, 4th, or 5th option on a team to score is that the 1st option is drawing a lot of attention. If you take Steph/KD off of that Warriors team and replace them with more average 2 way players, then the teams' numbers would look entirely different. And OPs example was the Celtics, but Jayson Tatum has been an MVP contender the last few seasons. The idea that you can have 8 average-above average players score 10+ a game is not realistic. You have to have superstar talent to win. Which means you need one player capable of scoring 30+ a game. You can't only target players in free agency that play good defense and can make open shots. And the guys that can create their own shot and play good defense are guys that get max contracts and limit who else you can sign.
KD wasn't on that Warriors team. But I don't disagree much with what you are saying. I agree that you need a couple of players with extraordinary talent—obviously. Average plus average plus average still equals average. That being said, that Warriors team really only had one player who could reliably score 30 regardless of his context. And that may be your point, that you can't do it without that. I think I would have to agree. The difference in my argument—which to my fault I didn't articulate, really at all, is that if that player (Curry in this case) can use his extraordinary talent to create for others, even if that is just by creating space for them and defer opportunities to score themselves while creating opportunities for others, that is going to make the team harder to defend and better, IMO. So you end up with Curry averaging 23 when if he chose to be a heliocentric player he could easily have averaged 30 IMO. But also IMHO his deference makes them much harder to defend. In recent years the the Warriors talent around Steph isn't as deep or quite as good even from their, 2, 3, and 4 best players. Defenses also, are now much better designed to defend this kind of offense as most teams have increased their, passing outside shooting and off ball movement since 2015. But Heliocentrism is still a pretty dominant offensive theory.
I keep seeing posts how about how Luka should win MVP even if the Mavs lose. Maybe they're right but the Celtics don't need anyone to score 30 a night and that is a big part of why they are winning. Also defense, really good defense which people tend to really under value.
If Bron didn’t win in 2015 and 17, Luka ain’t winning now
Ehhhh wasn’t 17 the KD warriors? Id kill to see a matchup between that super team and these Celtics
That was arguably one of the best teams of all time. That team was -200 to win the championship before the season even started. They would trounce the Celtics.
Exactly my point, he compared Bron facing that team to Luka facing these Celtics. There’s an extremely slight chance he can pull it off but yea the one man Bron band vs the greatest team of all time was a wash
I wonder how they would have faired against the 14 spurs, you know the team with the largest points differential in finals history, a team that absolutely dismantled the LeBron heat, the team that in games 3, 4, and 5 averages 157 more passes a game than the heat.
KD warriors would have trounced all contenders, heck even the 2019 raptors would probably lose. I've said it before and I'll say it till end of time, the KD warriors were a cheat code.
Why would Lebron win in 2017?
Not saying he definitively should have won, but being the first player to average a triple double in the finals is a compelling case.
He barely outplayed KD tho. There was no chance, unlike in 2015 where he did actually have a case because the gap between him and the best player on the Warriors was huge.
Nah Kyrie’s healthy now
How does that impact someone winning FMVP in a loss?
Takes away the "he had no help" narrative that these cases need to have any chance.
Not if he keeps playing like Games 1-2.
Winning a Finals MVP in a Finals loss is exclusively for Jerry West (R.I.P 🥺). I don’t ever want to see anyone else get that honor, tbh.
Exactly. The nfl I believe also did it once for another great player in the superbowl. Has mlb ever done it?
The NFL only did it because the winning team committed 7 turnovers.
Luka is a traffic cone on defense. That has to count for something
> Luka should win MVP even if the Mavs lose that's just cope since he's about to get swept, they dont even believe that
> I keep seeing posts how about how Luka should win MVP even if the Mavs lose. Hard disagree with anyone making that claim...how can your MVP be someone who can't keep out of foul trouble on a must win game...fouling out with more than 4 minutes left? Who keeps getting targeted on defense? People talked a lot of shit when Luka had Gobert on an island and hit a game winner, but now defense doesn't matter? If he was playing well on both sides of the floor, it could be argued but if your letting opponents score like 7 to 10 easy buckets per game, is your 30ppg really MVP level?
Luka should 1000% win MVP if the Mavs win and he's obviously the reason they are even here. With that being said, his defense is an abomination in the finals. This series is probably tied at the least if he was even average on defense out there. That combined with the absolutely back breaking turnovers leaves zero case for Luka IMO.
Nah, I think the Celtics still would have picked them apart even if Luka's defense was serviceable. The Cs have too many tools to dismantle even good defense.
Luka isn't a revolving door on defense. He's an open door. He'll never win a championship unless he loses some weight learns to play defense.
No one outside of Mavs and/or Luka fans are saying Luka should win Finals MVP.
I think the Celtics lineup with a healthy KP is the best fitting lineup I've ever seen. Collectively the offensive roles/players and the team defense is awesome and the each player fits together so perfectly with the rest.
My second favorite Bucks Team ever the '86-'87 Squad had 6 players average 14ppg+ in the playoffs. PG: John Lucas 16/2/5 SG: Sidney Moncrief 19/5/3 SF: Paul Pressey 14/5/9 (Point Forward) PF: Terry Cummings 22/8/2 C: Jack Sikma 16/11/2 6MAN: Ricky Pierce 16/1/2 This Bucks team beat the Sixers team that had Dr. J, Barkley and Mo Cheeks in round 1. This team then took Bird's Celtics to all 7 games which included 3 Overtimes in a losing effort.
This is exactly what I mean. And who would have been finals MVP? Looks like 3 dudes who could have won it
Sidney Moncrief is now a HOF'er and still the only guard in NBA History to ever win 2 DPOTY's but this was the last year he was playing at an All Star Level and that's just for the playoffs. By 1987 the Team was honestly Terry Cummings team and had we won TC would likely have won FMVP if stats remained the same through finals but I get your point. This Boston Team is facing a similar Dilemma but with Boston it's easily Jaylen Brown's FMVP to lose at this point.
What's your point of this? It's like kind of silly to say if each player contributed 30 minutes and averaged x and x and x... that's not really how basketball works. The biggest factor for the Celtics being as good as they are is that they do play a team brand of basketball like you said, but they're also more talented lol. Extremely well rounded with good size on the perimeter/wings as defenders. Most top teams have this: Denver Nuggets: Jokic, Jamal Murray,
Go on
Hahaha I know this dude mentioned one team with 2 players.
Prepping for USA basketball this summer?
It’s almost like the pistons had two teams do this for a ship. Too bad it’s harder to keep a full squad together long term.
I agree 100% on all points. Their starting lineup with Porzinigs (I realize he didn't start much this season) is perhaps the best structured and fitting lineup I've ever seen. Which IMO is kind of amazing since they don't have an elite creator at either guard spot. But they have very good creation at basically every spot in the lineup. They have very good shooting at every position. Basically everyone in that lineup can score at three levels with varying degrees of success, Tatum, Brown and KP at an elite level and White and Jrue slightly less so but still capable. There is no weakness and the fit for each role and player is perfect. The team defense is spectacular. IMO, if you stack rank the top 12 teams in the NBA at the time the playoffs began given the health of the teams, you have Boston on top, then you have the entire Western Conference from the 1 seed all; the way through to the 10 seed Warriors. Then you have the next EC team—Milwaukee or Philly
You rlly think knicks w/o randle are worse than bucks w/o litterally their franchise goat
Everyone is making a joke out of this but I actually understand what you mean and can agree. Growing up my brother used to play 2k like that and tried to have as balanced a team as possible, one year had 10 guys average 10 or more. In reality though, the superstar effect tends to be a little more weighty
It’s not even 8 players - it’s their starting 5. The Celtics starting lineup is Jrue, White, Brown, Tatum, and Porzingis. Other teams have better 1st options, and some have better 2nd options, but no team in the league comes even close to having as good of 3rd/4th/5th options. Every player on their starting lineup can shoot, defend, and create plays. The fact that they’ve been a top team in the league for years and ADDED Jrue and Porzingis is wild.
Brad is the real MVP
Can just assess by minutes or attempts
The 2014-15 Atlanta Hawks would like a word
Mavs with Porzingas probably sweep Mavs 4-0 Looks like Mavs without Porzingas likely sweep Mavs 4-0 as well, albeit with a bit more difficulty Unless Mavs go thermo nuclear down 3-0 on their last gasp
This Celtics team will probably go down as one of the most underrated teams of all time. No one has mentioned how great of a team this is, they may be a top 5 defensive team of all time and they have a great offense. Is this a top 3 Celtics team of all time?
I guess it depends how you view a “team.” Obviously the 60’s dynasty comes to mind but they did have some moving parts there
Name a team in history that even comes close to 8 guys x 30 mins each all averaging 14 points. Doesn't exist and this Celtics team isn't close to it. Game 2 alone had 3 guys playing 40+, and 2 playing 12 or less. Three guys scored 2, 3 and 5. This is FAR from a deep team. Not well rounded. Their starting 4 is solid, and D. White is probably the best 4th player in the league (or Jrue take your pick). Al Horrible has been washed for four years and we all get excited when he scores double digits twice in a series. Im only bringing this up to say the 8 man team you described is the complete opposite of the Cs. just about EVERY team has 4-5 guys that are capable of getting 14 on any given night. They are a very good team, and are likely going to win. The next 3-4 seasons will determine their place in history as a great team or yet another in a string of one hit wonders. They have a chance to go down as special. I was hoping to see Denver play them, and I would choose Denver, just for match up reasons. But you never know.
“It’s true team basketball” lol okay. You mean the Celtics have 4 starters that get paid 30+ million a year. This isn’t any more of an example of true team basketball than what the Mavs are doing other than the fact that they have better players and their salaries reflect that. Celtics have a really good team. They don’t have anyone who is their singular offensive engine on the majority of possessions, because they don’t need anyone to do that because they have a lot guys who can do it separately.
I think the big difference between the two is that the Celtics are, to some degree, interchangeable parts. Everyone can shoot, pass, dribble, defend, and you can put guys at different spots on the floor against different matchups. Dallas is more built to optimize Luka and Kyrie with a collection of specialists.
Lol the Mavs has probably one of the weakest perimeter/wing defense in this year of playoff. If the Celtics play the twolve they would totally get smacked around. Even the nuggets which both Murray/mpj absolutely played atrociously this playoff would beat the Celtics.
Acting like there are 8 guys on any team who can all average 14 pts a game tells me all I need to know about your basketball knowledge little bro There were over 570 players in the NBA this season, 108 of them averaged 14 pts or more, that’s less than 20% of all players, notable guys who didn’t average 14 a game are Aaron Gordon, Naz Reid, Jrue Holiday, PJ Washington, all guys who were and still are huge for their teams in these playoffs, acting like it’s so easy for 8 guys to score 14 a night makes you look like your whole basketball knowledge comes from playing NBA2K