The Theory of Superstar Teams in the NBA

Does stacking up a team with numerous "superstars" equate to a championship team?
By Jonathan Underhill

The current trend in the NBA seems to revolve around the theory of superstar-stacked teams. Teams look at the quick-fix successes of the Boston Celtics and Miami Heat. Boston was the start of multiple superstar signings with Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen. The team immediately went from mediocrity to contenders. Miami won the NBA finals in ’05-’06, but over the next four season they had a record of 149-179 before signing LeBron James and Chris Bosh. Since then, history speaks for itself- going to the Finals in each of the following three seasons and winning the last two. It’s hard to question this theory given those numbers, but currently the two teams atop of the East and West aren’t advocates of the theory, instead buying into the theory of team basketball. The Pacers and Spurs do have their fair share of stars but neither has stacked up via free agency with max-contract players. Their teams are more complete from top to bottom. One exceptional element of Indiana and San Antonio’s success is the often forgotten about aspect of basketball- Defense. Last season, Miami was brought to the brink of elimination against Indiana in the Eastern Conference Finals followed by San Antonio taking Miami to seven games in the Finals. Supporters of “superstar” teams will point out Miami winning those games, but history can show San Antonio’s success and lets not forget Miami lost in 2011 to the Dallas Mavericks, who just so happen to be pro-team basketball. So how valuable are individual players to their team? Is Miami’s success just a coincidence? Or is this the future of the NBA? Lets take a closer look.

The NBA is much more superstar driven then any of the other 4 major American sports. But rightfully so, there is only five players for each team on the court at any given time, and only 12 on the each roster. Thus, each individual player has more of an impact on the overall game, so that would not be the reason the NBA is considered superstar driven. This label the NBA has earned comes from the large gap between the great players and the average players. The distinction between superstars and the rest of NBA players is usually very apparent. Great players are obviously vital to a teams success but is having two, or even three, of these types of players worth leaving the other nine to ten roster spots with below average players? Looking back at the previous NBA champions there is skewed data. Since 1999 there have been 15 NBA champions, won by only six different teams.

Championships (Appearances)
1) Lakers- 5 (7)
2) Spurs- 4 (5)
3) Heat- 3 (4)
4) Pistons- 1 (2)
5) Celtics- 1 (2)
6) Mavericks- 1 (2)

Lets analyze these championship teams and see if they were the product of superstar driven rosters or the product of teamwork and depth. The Lakers first three championships (’00-’02) were clearly all about the Shaq and Kobe show, clearly making them a superstar driven team. But conversely, their other two championships (’09 & ’10) were with an almost entire different roster excluding Kobe Bryant. This roster included Pau Gasol, Lamar Odom, Trevor Ariza (traded for Ron Artest in ’10), Andrew Bynum, etc. This team, while still centered around Kobe, showed plenty of depth which was ultimately the reason for their success. San Antonio has been competing for championships nearly every year since 1999. They won it all in ’99, ’03, ’05, and ’07 and also made an appearance, losing to the Heat, in ’13. They also have won 62 games this season which is the most by any team since the Mavericks won 67 games in the ’06-’07 season. What makes the Spurs so great is their ability to get quality players for value and having them improve around existing pieces. Duncan and Parker are NBA stars but the championships are from the depth of the rest of the roster as well. The Pistons went to the championship in back-to-back years, winning it in ’04. They had a starting roster that all made the all-star team that year. Talk about a complete team. The ’06 Heat had a Dwayne Wade, Shaq, a bunch of oldies, and a bunch of nobodies. The ’12 and ’13 Heat was the product of LeBron James and Chris Bosh deciding to take their talents to South Beach together to team up with Dwayne Wade. The Celtics ’08 roster included Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, and Kevin Garnett, or the original “Big 3.” Three great players who had never won a championship decided to team up towards the end of their careers to win the big prize. And last but not least, the Dallas Mavericks ’11 team has been the only roster able to beat a LeBron-led Heat team in a 7-game series. Dirk Nowitzki was the staple piece of a roster that also included Jason Kidd, Tyson Chandler, Shawn Marion and Jason Terry. Given that information there is no conclusive evidence that either theory is better than the other. With the logic I’m using to separate the different philosophies used by these championship-winning teams, the outcome is nearly equally divided. The final tally has eight on the “team-basketball theory” side and seven on the “superstar-stacked theory” side.

There are numerous teams currently that have put together their own “superstar teams.” We’ve seen the Brooklyn Nets shell out major money to bring in the likes of Deron Williams, Joe Johnson, Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce and many more. While it’s impossible to call this a failure since the playoffs have yet to begin, the teams’ future is looking dark. They are in cap hell and hobbled out the gate to start the season, currently 5th in the East after the team turned it around after the all-star break. We will see what the post-season brings for Brooklyn but to this point, even Brooklyn fans must agree, they’ve been a disappointment. Also in the East, the Detroit Pistons shed big bucks last offseason to acquire Brandon Jennings and Josh Smith. It was a odd decision by the front office to lock this team up financially for the fore seeable future and the moves didn’t equate to wins regardless. They are out of the playoff picture and are currently sitting at 29-52 with one game left. On the other hand, the Rockets and Clippers are two teams in the West that would beg to differ about how well the “superstar theory” works. The Clippers are 3rd and Rockets in 4th in a highly tight and competitive Western conference. Both teams have done a lot of maneuvering, whether it’s in free agency or on the trading block, to build their respective teams. Both teams are also viable candidates to represent the Western conference in the NBA Finals.

The more and more you try and look into the viability of superstar driven teams, the more inconclusive the evidence turns out to be. With the NBA being so much more superstar driven compared to the rest of the major team-sports, is it possible that our perception of a good player versus a great player is skewed? I believe there are simply so many aspects of basketball that we tend to over-look. Defense, rebounding, movement without the ball, and court awareness are just a few commonly over-looked qualities in a player. Also, a player that makes everyone else better is something that’s impossible to represent with numbers or even predict if it will translate to a different team. Simply plugging in numerous players that perform well on paper will never be the secrete formula for success. Some stars mesh with other stars, while others cause their teams to regress. It’s the ultimate conundrum. Building a championship team is not an east task, so it’s impossible to say there’s a right or wrong way to do it. At the end of the day, trying to find that secrete formula is just silly. Teams prevail in different ways, sometimes being impossible to predict. As fans we just have to sit back and enjoy the show.