Youngest or most immature team to win a championship?

[iamgine]

Jason Kidd recently said there's never been a young team whether mentally or physically who won a championship.

So which team was the closest to that description?

[Im Still Ballin]

Warriors were pretty young in 2015.

[ArbitraryWater]

It doesnt happen.

The only times it happens (2015 GSW) is through some extreme outlier/injury.

[dankok8]

1979 Sonics were a pretty young core with Sikma 23, DJ 24 and Gus 25.

[AlternativeAcc.]

It doesnt happen.

The only times it happens (2015 GSW) is through some extreme outlier/injury.

Their average age that season was 27, and middle of the league in terms of age.

Led by a 30 year old vet who won FMVP too.


But yeah, that ring obviously doesn't count due to injuries.

[FultzNationRISE]

Warriors were pretty young in 2015.

True but even then, Iggy their FMVP was a cagey veteran, and role guys like Livingston, Barbosa and Bogut etc had plenty of experience.

[FultzNationRISE]

At the end of the day you either have to have a lot of CUMULATIVE maturity, experience, and savvy, or you can just have Lebron. But without one of those youre stuck.

[1987_Lakers]

'81 Celtics? '91 Bulls?

[SouBeachTalents]

There’s never been a team that’s won like that. Off the top of my head the only team I can think of in any sport would be the 2013 Seahawks.

[1987_Lakers]

'71 Bucks had an average age of 26, but middle of the pact in age compared to the rest of the league.

[FultzNationRISE]

It’s the same reason older people have more money than their younger counterparts.

Knowledge and experience pays.

[j3lademaster]

77 Trailblazers

Bill Walton 24, Maurice Lucas 24, Lionel hollins 23, Bob Gross 23. Average age of 24, oldest player on the roster was a 30 year old Herm Gilliam.

[1987_Lakers]

77 Trailblazers

Bill Walton 24, Maurice Lucas 24, Lionel hollins 23, Bob Gross 23. Average age of 24, oldest player on the roster was a 30 year old Herm Gilliam.

Good one.

[Nb1]

Experience plays a big role on a champioship run. Last season the Warriors didn't face any former champ. Not even sure any player they faced had been to an NBA final. It's like playing vs newbies who will crumble as soon as it gets tough. That being said the opposite also counts. You won't win with a whole team full of post 35 yr old players.

[Jacques Webster]

There’s never been a team that’s won like that. Off the top of my head the only team I can think of in any sport would be the 2013 Seahawks.

They deff got the immature part down.

[JBSptfn]

The 1975 Warriors only had three guys 30 or over (Rick Barry, Jeff Mullins, and Bill Bridges): They also had seven guys under 25, including 21-year old Jamaal Wilkes:

https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/GSW/1975.html

[mr4speed]

'81 Celtics? '91 Bulls?

I think Cedric Maxwell once said that the 81 Celtics team was the first time any members had ever won a championship - not just at the NBA level but also college and high school. Wonder if that has ever happened with another team?

[John8204]

50' Lakers
Mikan (25)
Mikkelson (21)
Grant (22)
Pollard (27)
Ferrin (24)
Martin (24)

56' Warriors
Arizin (27)
Gola (23)
Johnston (26)
George (27)
Beck (24)

[kawhileonard2]

2000 Lakers

[warriorfan]

Jason Kidd recently said there's never been a young team whether mentally or physically who won a championship.

So which team was the closest to that description?

it’s true and i’ve been saying the same thing for years. bran stan’s flip out and think i’m trolling when i tell them the 2012 lock out chip vs 22 and 23 year old core of okc is nothing to write home about and good chance to be asterisk worthy. no teams wins chips with kids that are 22 and 23 and don’t have deep playoff experience. (russ kd and harden were all 22 and 23 at the time)

[3ba11]

it’s true and i’ve been saying the same thing for years. bran stan’s flip out and think i’m trolling when i tell them the 2012 lock out chip vs 22 and 23 year old core of okc is nothing to write home about and good chance to be asterisk worthy. no teams wins chips with kids that are 22 and 23 and don’t have deep playoff experience. (russ kd and harden were all 22 and 23 at the time)


Kidd is genius by saying this and his comments mirror the things you and I have said over the years..

Mature teams are needed to win but unfortunately, Lebron isn't capable of a mature team without ready-made stars, since his skillset can't develop young players into significant contributors.

Specifically, Luka or Lebron's abnormal ball-dominance for their size and position imposes spot-up roles that stall young players, thereby needing ready-made stars - they lack the teammate development, fits or brand of ball to win organically and must resort to talent-based winning (team-hopping.. all-star team strategy).. Btw, "abnormal ball-dominance" is defined as abnormally-low assisted rate for size & position (not an assist target, aka off-ball) and abnormally-high hold-time for size & position (point-guard style live-dribbler).

Continuing Kidd's logic, Pippen won 55 in 94' because he was gifted a fully-grown, 3-peat dynasty - he could never develop a baby or lottery team like 85' Jordan and 11' Curry (1st options) - Pippen did the opposite by destroying a 3-peat dynasty to borderline lottery quickly before MJ returned in 95'.

Also along the same lines - and we might disagree on this - the 15' Warriors were young, 1st-timers that barely beat an injured Cavs team, while the 10-year organic juggernaut Jazz destroyed Shaq's 4 all-stars and Duncan/Pop in 98'. So MJ would've had a much easier carry-job against the 1st-timer Warriors than the 10-year organic juggernauts emanating out of the 90's West.. Accordingly, regular season record aside, the Warriors weren't a juggernaut before KD got there and before Curry was truly seasoned after that - the current Warriors are more of a juggernaut (playoff-tested and mentally-stronger) than the 15' or even 16' Warriors.. The preseason odds show how much of an upstart the 15' and 16' Warriors were (they were underdogs each year).

[L.Kizzle]

I don't think an immature team is gonna win.
Would yall call the Bad Boy Pistons immature?

[ShawkFactory]

it’s true and i’ve been saying the same thing for years. bran stan’s flip out and think i’m trolling when i tell them the 2012 lock out chip vs 22 and 23 year old core of okc is nothing to write home about and good chance to be asterisk worthy. no teams wins chips with kids that are 22 and 23 and don’t have deep playoff experience. (russ kd and harden were all 22 and 23 at the time)

I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment that it's tough for a young team to win a championship, but why would beating the team in front of you in the finals be asterisk worthy? Particularly one that didn't have any injuries and romped through the West beating the previous 2 defending champs in just 9 games and backdoor sweeping a team that was paced to win 62 games and swept the first 2 rounds?

It's a stretch.

[Full Court]

'81 Celtics? '91 Bulls?

The only old guy I can think of on the '91 Bulls was Cartwright.

[3ba11]

but why would beating the team in front of you in the finals be asterisk worthy?





because young teams mentally or physically don't win titles

OKC had no chance and it's intuitive that the baby versions of Westbrick, KD and Harden wouldn't be that good.

The only reason that baby Westbrick was favored over a super-team of veterans is because Lebron is just that bad - oddsmakers weren't going get burned for the 4th straight year by making Lebron the favorite after he lost as the favorite the previous 3 years (09-11').. Lebron was viewed as a massive choker and liability that couldn't be trusted to win it all