What is your definition of a championship caliber team?

[Mr Exlax]

My thoughts on what a championship caliber team is:

If you take the best player off that team, they would still make the playoffs at least. (Not set in stone that they would make them. Just what I predict)

Please comment on what you consider a championship caliber team.

[Jolokia]

A point guard like Mike Conley
A shooting guard like Dwyane Wade
A small forward like Rudy Gay
A power forward like Zach Randolph
A center like Marc Gasol

Lebron could've used a Mayo.

[InfiniteBaskets]

My thoughts on what a championship caliber team is:

If you take the best player off that team, they would still make the playoffs at least. (Not set in stone that they would make them. Just what I predict)

Please comment on what you consider a championship caliber team.

That depends on the structure of how a team is built. You take Iverson off the early 2000s 76ers and I'm not sure they would make the playoffs anymore. Yet that team still made it all the way to the finals. Same with Lebron in 2009. When one player is such a large focal point in your offense and you have nothing to replace him with in a team with nothing but defenders, it's hard for them to make the playoffs.

Conversely, you take Iguodala off the Nuggets (or whomever you think is their best player) they probably still make the playoffs. For the majority of this year nobody really called the Nuggets contenders until that win streak they had recently.

If there's one one criteria I had to look at for championship contending teams, I'd look at record against plus .500 teams when both teams are fully or reasonably healthy.

[Mr Exlax]

That depends on the structure of how a team is built. You take Iverson off the early 2000s 76ers and I'm not sure they would make the playoffs anymore. Yet that team still made it all the way to the finals. Same with Lebron in 2009. When one player is such a large focal point in your offense and you have nothing to replace him with in a team with nothing but defenders, it's hard for them to make the playoffs.

Conversely, you take Iguodala off the Nuggets (or whomever you think is their best player) they probably still make the playoffs. For the majority of this year nobody really called the Nuggets contenders until that win streak they had recently.

If there's one one criteria I had to look at for championship contending teams, I'd look at record against plus .500 teams when both teams are fully or reasonably healthy.

I dig what you're saying. Even though the 76ers made it, they weren't a championship caliber team to me.

Same thing with the Cavs in 2009
Same thing with the Rockets in 1994

The Nuggets I don't know what to call them. I knew they were going to be good. No doubt in my mind. That display they put on against the Lakers the last playoffs made my mind up lol. I don't know what to call them though. I guess they're championship contenders by my own definition.

[ThaRegul8r]

A team that is legitimately capable of winning an NBA championship.

[Goldrush25]

To win a championship, you need to be a good team. There are lots of good teams in the NBA.

To be a consistent NBA title contender (and not just a team that has a chance once every 10 years or so), you need at least an MVP candidate and 1 additional bona-fide All-Star. That's the minimum prerequisite. Basically you need a superteam, and it's been that way for years. 80's Lakers were a superteam. 80's Celtics were a superteam. Late 80's Pistons were a superteam. 90's Bulls were a superteam. Lakers of the 2000s were a superteam. Spurs were a superteam. The common demominator were those teams were consistent threats while their stars were in their primes, not flukes that won a single championship.

Not saying a well-constructed, deep team w/o superstars can't can't lightining in a bottle and win a single title (Detroit '04, Dallas '11), but if you don't have those stars your margin of error is too small. There is typically too much year-to-year variance with injuries in an 82-game season for non-superteams to compete consistently.

I see people on here all the time say "Well if _______" didn't have injuries they could've competed for a title. Well no isht. Injuries happen to every team. The "superteams" can withstand those injuries and that's why they're not worse for the wear.

[Mr Exlax]

A team that is legitimately capable of winning an NBA championship.

Wouldn't that be any team that shows up?

[DMV2]

Superstar/All-Star Go-To Guy (9 out of 10 times, a championship caliber team has this player)
Clutch sharpshooter (Kerr, Horry, Battier, )
Defense
An Unsung hero (Barea, Chalmers, Posey, Horry)
A bit of coaching/system

I think you need at least 3 out of the 5. Most of the the time, at least 4 depends on how great that Go-to guy is.

Or

A little bit of everything like the Carlisle/Brown Era Pistons.

[AlphaWolf24]

To win a championship, you need to be a good team. There are lots of good team in the NBA.

To be a consistent NBA title contender (and not just a team that has a chance once every 10 years or so), you need at least an MVP candidate and 1 additional bona-fide All-Star. That's the minimum prerequisite. Basically you need a superteam, and it's been that way for years.

Not saying a well-constructed team can't can't lightining in a bottle and win a single title (Detroit '04, Dallas '11), but if you don't have those stars your margin of error is too small. There is typically too much year-to-year variance with injuries in an 82-game season for non-superteams to compete consistently.


Big Z was a bona fide allstar since Lebrons Rookie year....

recap: Lebron has played with a Bonafide Allstar caliber center his whole career!:banana: :banana: :banana:

Pwned this thread in 10 words or less....



next

[AlphaWolf24]

I dig what you're saying. Even though the 76ers made it, they weren't a championship caliber team to me.

Same thing with the Cavs in 2009
Same thing with the Rockets in 1994

The Nuggets I don't know what to call them. I knew they were going to be good. No doubt in my mind. That display they put on against the Lakers the last playoffs made my mind up lol. I don't know what to call them though. I guess they're championship contenders by my own definition.


Cavs were a championship caliber team since 07'......and the Rockets won in 1994'...

so you think the Rockets and Cavs wern't a championship caliber team?


:lol

[ThaRegul8r]

Wouldn't that be any team that shows up?

No, it wouldn't.

The Bobcats, for instance, are not legitimately capable of winning an NBA title. Any insistence to the contrary would be absurd.

Every team in the NBA is not equally capable of winning an NBA title. There are teams before each season that you know have no shot at competing. Which is why it's a misnomer when people try to act like the team that wins a title beat 30 teams to do so when only a fraction of that number are legitimate championship contenders.

[Goldrush25]

Big Z was a bona fide allstar since Lebrons Rookie year....

recap: Lebron has played with a Bonafide Allstar caliber center his whole career!:banana: :banana: :banana:

Pwned this thread in 10 words or less....



next

Who said anything about Lebron?? Don't drag me into that crap because I don't get down with that moronic trolling you guys do on here. I'm here to talk basketball intelligently.

If you want to call Lebron's Cavs a superteam, I don't care. It satisfies my criteria, but so do the Spurs that they lost to. They lost to a better superteam. Where was the "pwned" part happen exactly?

[AlphaWolf24]

To win a championship, you need to be a good team. There are lots of good teams in the NBA.

To be a consistent NBA title contender (and not just a team that has a chance once every 10 years or so), you need at least an MVP candidate and 1 additional bona-fide All-Star. That's the minimum prerequisite. Basically you need a superteam, and it's been that way for years. 80's Lakers were a superteam. 80's Celtics were a superteam. Late 80's Pistons were a superteam. 90's Bulls were a superteam. Lakers of the 2000s were a superteam. Spurs were a superteam. The common demominator were those teams were consistent threats while their stars were in their primes, not flukes that won a single championship.

Not saying a well-constructed, deep team w/o superstars can't can't lightining in a bottle and win a single title (Detroit '04, Dallas '11), but if you don't have those stars your margin of error is too small. There is typically too much year-to-year variance with injuries in an 82-game season for non-superteams to compete consistently.

I see people on here all the time say "Well if _______" didn't have injuries they could've competed for a title. Well no isht. Injuries happen to every team. The "superteams" can withstand those injuries and that's why they're not worse for the wear.


so much BS......

- they became super teams because there stars won them to titles!....

- Magic steps up as rookie and helps LA win the title.....if he chokes or doesn't win titles he goes down as a TMAC caliber player...

- Bird and the Celtics win Titles....if he doesn't win , Bird and Mchale go down as Drexler / Kersey and Duckworth type players....

- Jordan won titles.....If he lost every year....he would have gone down like Lebron ( before he quit and left Cleveland)

- Barkley played on super teams his whole career....never won shit......as did Karl malone....Carmelo Anthony has played on Super teams.....Durant has played on great teams nearly his whole career.....

many great players play on great teams......to the winner goes the spoils.

[Psycho]

A team with a greater than 15 % chance of winning the championship.

[Mr. Jabbar]

A team with either kobe or coachbe

[AlphaWolf24]

Who said anything about Lebron?? Don't drag me into that crap because I don't get down with that moronic trolling you guys do on here. I'm here to talk basketball intelligently.

If you want to call Lebron's Cavs a superteam, I don't care. It satisfies my criteria, but so do the Spurs that they lost to. They lost to a better superteam. Where was the "pwned" part happen exactly?


OP was mad because everyone thought Lebrons cavs teams were going to win the title ( at least get to the Finals)...after winning 60 games a season....


now he's here to tell everyone.....60 win teams that lose in the ECFinals are really not good/championship caliber teams:lol


sory you got caught in the crossfire...but this is serious biznazz......def thread worthymaterial.

[Psycho]

Who said anything about Lebron?? Don't drag me into that crap because I don't get down with that moronic trolling you guys do on here. I'm here to talk basketball intelligently.

If you want to call Lebron's Cavs a superteam, I don't care. It satisfies my criteria, but so do the Spurs that they lost to. They lost to a better superteam. Where was the "pwned" part happen exactly?

:facepalm Nice deflection scrub. You should lurk a little more so you don't embarrass yourself next time. You'll get'em next time tiger. :sleeping

[selrahc]

one that has kobe on it

[Goldrush25]

so much BS......

- they became super teams because there stars won them to titles!....

- Magic steps up as rookie and helps LA win the title.....if he chokes or doesn't win titles he goes down as a TMAC caliber player...

- Bird and the Celtics win Titles....if he doesn't win , Bird and Mchale go down as Drexler / Kersey and Duckworth type players....

- Jordan won titles.....If he lost every year....he would have gone down like Lebron ( before he quit and left Cleveland)

- Barkley played on super teams his whole career....never won shit......as did Karl malone....Carmelo Anthony has played on Super teams.....Durant has played on great teams nearly his whole career.....

many great players play on great teams......to the winner goes the spoils.

Where did I say that every superteam wins a championship?

My point is that if you want to build a "championship caliber team," a team that is a yearly threat to win a title, history says you need to build a superteam. It's been proven that they win the most championships. But yeah, only 1 team can win a championship per year, so if there are multiple superteams in the league the rest of them end up losing. Who knew?

And it's not BS just because you think so. Everything I'm saying is actually backed up by history.

[Mr Exlax]

Cavs were a championship caliber team since 07'......and the Rockets won in 1994'...

so you think the Rockets and Cavs wern't a championship caliber team?


:lol

Honestly no. I mean just because I don't think it doesn't mean it's 100% correct.
Boston did what I expected them to do to beat the Cavs. See with me, the regular season doesn't hold that much weight.
Even though we won, I didn't consider us a championship caliber team. I was proven incorrect, but I just looked at it like Hakeem would have to do too much. I don't like when one player has to lead his team in a million different catagories for them to win.

[97 bulls]

At least two players capable of leading a team to 50 plus wins.


Two players capable of being the second best player on a 50+ win team.

A competant bench

A competant coach

[Mr Exlax]

OP was mad because everyone thought Lebrons cavs teams were going to win the title ( at least get to the Finals)...after winning 60 games a season....


now he's here to tell everyone.....60 win teams that lose in the ECFinals are really not good/championship caliber teams:lol


sory you got caught in the crossfire...but this is serious biznazz......def thread worthymaterial.


Wait wait wait bro. OP didn't get mad. OP never gets mad. Why would OP get mad at what somebody else thinks? I didn't say my definition was better than anybody else's. If I say the Cavs weren't a championship caliber team by my standards, but you disagree with me won't make me mad. I'm not right or wrong. I'm openly asking what other people think. I didn't list any teams until somebody else listed teams. This isn't really a debate thing. If you feel like you've "won" or something then have at it. I'm still wanting to know everybody's definition of a championship caliber team.

[Mr Exlax]

one that has kobe on it

Smush Parker Lakers were a championship caliber team to you?

[Mr Exlax]

At least two players capable of leading a team to 50 plus wins.


Two players capable of being the second best player on a 50+ win team.

A competant bench

A competant coach

Nice! Hell that seems like the perfect team to me lol.

[WayOfWade]

Simple answer for me is if you are one of the top 2 seeds in your conference, then you are automatically a contender. A couple other elite teams could be thrown around each conference with 3 or four seeds though, but it depends on how good they actually are.

[AlphaWolf24]

Wait wait wait bro. OP didn't get mad. OP never gets mad. Why would OP get mad at what somebody else thinks? I didn't say my definition was better than anybody else's. If I say the Cavs weren't a championship caliber team by my standards, but you disagree with me won't make me mad. I'm not right or wrong. I'm openly asking what other people think. I didn't list any teams until somebody else listed teams. This isn't really a debate thing. If you feel like you've "won" or something then have at it. I'm still wanting to know everybody's definition of a championship caliber team.



Bro!...

You started a Thread....Based off my post in a totally different thread ( just so you could get imaginary support).....:lol


recap: You catched feelings after my post and thus....you needed imaginary online comfort......so you started this thread.


Bro...UMAD BRO!

[SCdac]

A team that is capable of beating any team in it's path. I do not consider teams that didn't win a championship "championship caliber" teams.

Maybe they are strongly contending for the title (ie. contenders) or are simply a "playoff caliber" team, but championship caliber teams have proved their mettle, and nobody gets in their way.

I don't see the definition of "championship caliber" team going hand-in-hand with regular season record. Good examples: Spurs of the last two seasons (#1 in the West) and the Phoenix Suns of 2005 (#1 in the entire league). Neither teams were champions.

Outside of the prerequisite of "no team can, or did, beat them", in championship teams I see common themes of: great coaches, great role players, great star players, supportive teammates, defensive and offensive competence, and more.

[ShaqAttack3234]

If you take the best player off that team, they would still make the playoffs at least. (Not set in stone that they would make them. Just what I predict)

Please comment on what you consider a championship caliber team.

I can think of quite a few championship teams that wouldn't have made the playoffs without their best player.

Anyway, in most cases, I think teams that play at a high level both offensively and defensively, and are elite at one of those ends are championship-caliber teams.

It's difficult to say in general, but there are usually a few teams each season I consider a realistic contender.

[Mr Exlax]

Bro!...

You started a Thread....Based off my post in a totally different thread ( just so you could get imaginary support).....:lol


recap: You catched feelings after my post and thus....you needed imaginary online comfort......so you started this thread.


Bro...UMAD BRO!

Why would I need imaginary online support? Why would I need support period? I asked what was everyone's definition of a championship caliber team. I haven't said a single person's definition was right or wrong or smart or dumb. Catch feelings? Me being mad? Because I didn't consider the Cavs contenders and everybody else did?
I started the post because there are many different POVs of what a championship caliber team is. Nobody is right or wrong. Son, the last thing I would do would be mad at an online poster.

[Mr Exlax]

I can think of quite a few championship teams that wouldn't have made the playoffs without their best player.

Anyway, in most cases, I think teams that play at a high level both offensively and defensively, and are elite at one of those ends are championship-caliber teams.

It's difficult to say in general, but there are usually a few teams each season I consider a realistic contender.

I feel ya. Like I said before though there's always exceptions to the rule. This is my general definition. Just looking at it from other's perspectives. I've been wrong plenty of times on teams that I wouldn't consider championship caliber and they still won. Thanks for the insight though bro!

[Mr Exlax]

A team that is capable of beating any team in it's path. I do not consider teams that didn't win a championship "championship caliber" teams.

Maybe they are strongly contending for the title (ie. contenders) or are simply a "playoff caliber" team, but championship caliber teams have proved their mettle, and nobody gets in their way.

I don't see the definition of "championship caliber" team going hand-in-hand with regular season record. Good examples: Spurs of the last two seasons (#1 in the West) and the Phoenix Suns of 2005 (#1 in the entire league). Neither teams were champions.

Outside of the prerequisite of "no team can, or did, beat them", in championship teams I see common themes of: great coaches, great role players, great star players, supportive teammates, defensive and offensive competence, and more.

I like that. I would think contenders and championship caliber going hand in hand

[AlphaWolf24]

Why would I need imaginary online support?

because mommy and daddy never built the foundation of self esteem and confidence...:confusedshrug:



Why would I need support period?

Lacking confidence/self esteem has made oneself confused....sexual orentation / self awarness etc..etc...:confusedshrug:


I asked what was everyone's definition of a championship caliber team. I haven't said a single person's definition was right or wrong or smart or dumb.

again....this shows you are not confident in yourself or your views



Catch feelings? Me being mad? Because I didn't consider the Cavs contenders and everybody else did?

Of course you were MAD....this thread proves it....you needed justification...inside you are scared and unsure

I started the post because there are many different POVs of what a championship caliber team is. Nobody is right or wrong. Son, the last thing I would do would be mad at an online poster.

O U def MAD...self describing reasons upon reasons why you are not mad....is clearly signs of just how mad one self is...

again....comes back to self repression.




cavs were a great team...and were on pace for a Championship until Bron left...

real talk....kid....


your welcome.....

[Mr Exlax]

cavs were a great team...and were on pace for a Championship until Bron left...

real talk....kid....


your welcome.....

The thing I guess you can't grasp is that I'm not debating if they were a great team or not. They were not a great team to me. I didn't see them ever beating Boston because they had no second option. There was nobody to take up the slack. Lebron generated everything for them. That's not what I like in a team. You think they were. That's fine with me. You're not right or wrong to me. You have a different opinion than me. If you have to talk shit about me or whatever to feel like you've proven a point then have at it my man. I still can't say anything negative about you. I don't know you and why would I? All I can say is your definition of a championship caliber team is different than mine.

[SCdac]

I like that. I would think contenders and championship caliber going hand in hand

Nah, I don't think so. Well, I'll say that it's all semantics and somewhat subjective. In my opinion, the "championship" part of championship caliber differentiates it from other labels, otherwise we're just talking about contenders (ie. the last 4 remaining teams in the playoffs essentially). When I hear the term championship caliber, the last thing that comes to my mind is a team that didn't win the championship. Teams lose and win for a reason. A team that only wins say 2 games in the Finals does so for a reason and I don't consider happenstance. They're simply not a championship team.

[#number6ix#]

My definition is

A team that has lock down defense
Two consistent unselfish scorers and solid role players
With solid corner 3 point shooting( we all know its all about the corner)

[Mr Exlax]

Nah, I don't think so. Well, I'll say that it's all semantics and somewhat subjective. In my opinion, the "championship" part of championship caliber differentiates it from other labels, otherwise we're just talking about contenders (ie. the last 4 remaining teams in the playoffs essentially). When I hear the term championship caliber, the last thing that comes to my mind is a team that didn't win the championship. Teams lose and win for a reason. A team that only wins say 2 games in the Finals does so for a reason and I don't consider happenstance. They're simply not a championship team.

Pretty cool :cheers:
I always like to hear different POVs.

[clayton]

Kobe's team.

[Mr Exlax]

Kobe's team.

Smush Parker Lakers too?

[UnbiasedGuy]

A team that can beat the heat this season :lol

[fpliii]

I'm not sure if we can necessarily define these teams, but we can enumerate them. As such, maybe in a given season we should try to reach some consensus as to which teams were contenders, and proceed from there?

[Mr Exlax]

I'm not sure if we can necessarily define these teams, but we can enumerate them. As such, maybe in a given season we should try to reach some consensus as to which teams were contenders, and proceed from there?

Hell that's hard enough to do right there though. I'll give it a shot.

Heat
Spurs
OKC
Pacers (my darkhorse for the last 3 seasons. I can't shake it)
Denver (if Gallo was healthy)
Bulls (if Rose was healthy)
Lakers (with diff coach and healthy)

I didn't watch the Knicks enough, but their record says they are too.

[fpliii]

Hell that's hard enough to do right there though. I'll give it a shot.

Heat
Spurs
OKC
Pacers (my darkhorse for the last 3 seasons. I can't shake it)
Denver (if Gallo was healthy)
Bulls (if Rose was healthy)
Lakers (with diff coach and healthy)

I didn't watch the Knicks enough, but their record says they are too.

I think it's impossible to do so prior to the playoffs, since this probably is an evaluation that has to be done retrospectively (including knowledge of the postseason). I also think that there are different classes of contenders:

strong title contenders
weak title contenders
fringe/'dark horse' title contenders
non-contenders

I'll have to think about who my contenders this season would be. I do think you have to make a holistic decision, without any qualifiers, though. So from your list I guess that'd mean:

strong contenders: Heat
weak contenders: Spurs, OKC (Knicks?)
fringe contenders: Pacers (possibly the other 3 and the Knicks if you don't have them above, depending on how big a difference those qualifiers would make)
non-contenders: everyone else

I haven't thought about it enough, but I think most would agree with the strong/weak contenders you named (if my classification is accurate).

[AlphaWolf24]

Is a team that wins 66 games......has HCA through out.....and has a MVP caliber player a " Championship caliber team"?????

[fpliii]

Is a team that wins 66 games......has HCA through out.....and has a MVP caliber player a " Championship caliber team"?????

I think so, though they might not always be the favorite (based on matchups, the MVP's weaknesses/inadequacies, etc).

[retaxis]

Lebron went through last year what MJ went through in the last 90s, beating the captains and best player of every team he matched up against e.g. Melo, Granger, Pierce, KD. He will never fear again because he has overcome that fear and took the ultimate prize. From now onwards its a matter of winning and winning at all costs.

[aceman]

At least two players capable of leading a team to 50 plus wins.


Two players capable of being the second best player on a 50+ win team.

A competant bench

A competant coach

how did mj & scottie go in 1995 without a power foward??

[97 bulls]

how did mj & scottie go in 1995 without a power foward??
They didnt win. They had two guys capable of leading a team to 50 wins. But didnt have enough depth down low offensively and especially defensively. They didnt meet the criterias I laid out. Thus why they didnt win.


In 96. The Bulls had Jordan, Pippen, Rodman, and Kukoc. Along with a strong bench and great coaching

[KOBE143]

A team with either kobe or coachbe
:applause: :bowdown: :bowdown:

this