The misconception of A.I. in 2001

[DMAVS41]

First, I'll say that this is how I interpreted these definitions.

Superstar= Top 5 player, or at least in the discussion
All-nba type player= Top 15 type player

Right away we have these teams that don't fit one part of your criteria

2011 Mavs
2004 Pistons
2003 Spurs
1994 Rockets
1990 Pistons
1989 Pistons

That's 6 teams in 24 seasons, so 25% of the teams. Not as rare as what you're making it out to be. Here are a few other teams that I consider to have proved capable, but fell a little short.

2010 Celtics
2006 Mavs
2005 Pistons
2000 Blazers
1994 Knicks



Allen was a pretty poor defender in Milwaukee, though he did play better defense with Boston. Maybe he'd have been better playing for a defensive-minded coach as well, I don't know. Similar to how Allen was always a good off the ball player, but he didn't play off the ball nearly as much in Milwaukee and Seattle. That was an adjustment he made going to Boston because prior to that, he handled the ball and got his own shot a lot.

Either way, this changes the team's chemistry quite a bit because now Iverson is playing more point guard, a position he was less effective at, and he's not in the same role to maximize his own ability by getting as many shots.

Regardless of whether Philly is better or not, I don't see them faring much better against the Lakers. There's no reason to think this addition would slow down Shaq one bit, and they now have much less of a chance to contain Kobe with Allen getting most of the minutes that would have gone to McKie or Snow.

This comes down to match ups and the irony is that Philly actually did fit your criteria. They had a superstar in Iverson and an all-nba second team center in Mutombo.



Maybe, then again, they might not get such a commanding lead in the first place. Either way, Dallas didn't need more scoring. They had a top 5 player in Dirk in addition to several perimeter threats and were the best offensive team in the league.

That team didn't need any additions to win a title. They needed to not collapse and play the way they did all season, the way that got them past the 63 win defending champion Spurs and the way that got them that lead in the first place.



25% of the title teams since '89 is not nearly as rare as you're making it out to be, and then there's those other teams who were right on par with the actual champions who gave them series that couldn't have possibly been closer.



The teams that have won haven't just been stars thrown together, their chemistry and systems have been integral parts of their success.

If you want to look at trends, 11 of the last 22 championship teams have run the triangle. Pop ran essentially the same system for all 4 of his championship teams. Then there's the best example I can think of what a difference a system can make.

The 1994 Rockets who had recently started with more of a 4 out/1 in approach with everything going through Hakeem. When they started doing this in 1993 during Rudy T's first full season, they became legit contenders. Prior to that, they were a first round type team despite having many of the same players such as Hakeem, Thorpe, Mad Max and Kenny Smith. Was it the addition of a rookie Robert Horry that took them from a 42-40 team that missed the playoffs in '92 to a 55 win team that finished the season 28-6 and lost in OT of a controversial game 7 of the WCSF to a loaded Sonics team? And then was it the addition of a rookie Sam Cassell that took them from there to actually winning it all?

No, the biggest difference was that Hakeem at 30 was finally in a system that maximized his individual ability, and in this system, his teammates complemented him and they played as a team.

What about the 2008 Celtics? Are they anywhere near as dominant without their defensive schemes?

You need to have a coach who maximizes the talent on his roster and adjusts to their strengths. That's why the Lakers are still barely over .500. They clearly have much more talent than that.



Actually, 2009 Cavs are a perfect example. Their offensive system, or lack thereof was exposed in the playoffs. When push came to shove, it was Lebron ball. Although there were other issues there such as how many match up problems the Magic caused and how thoroughly SVG outcoached Mike Brown. Despite Lewis burning Cleveland's 4s consistently, Brown kept defending him the same way. That made a massive difference, aside from Lewis producing at a high level all series, there was the 3 he got when Cleveland was up 2 to win game 1 and the 3 he got with Cleveland up 3 to send game 4 into OT, a particularly inexcusable lapse. Then there was Dwight just abusing Cleveland inside.

Even with the team they had, it came down to match ups and poor coaching. I firmly believe Cleveland would have matched up much better against LA than they did against Orlando, and I also believe Cleveland would have given LA a tougher series than Orlando did.

As far as 2010? The biggest thing here is Lebron suddenly disappearing with a 2-1 lead. But you can also point to match ups. They acquired Shaq to match up with Orlando, but they made another move that gave Boston a big match up advantage which was trading for Jamison. That allowed KG to have his way with Jamison and weakened Cleveland's defense.

Besides, I consider the 2008 Lakers to fit your criteria. Losing to a 66-16 team with a historically great defense, 3 hall of famers and a 10.3 margin of victory doesn't mean much. Just proves how great Boston was, especially since the Lakers dominated the West, including a team that fit your criteria.



2010 Finals- A few extra rebounds, and you could argue that if Perkins doesn't go down, he gives them that. Though rebounding had been a season long weakness so if I were to make an addition to this team, it'd have been to help that, not trying to swing a trade for a top 5 player. Either way, there's no question they could win as constructed. LA and Boston were virtually even.

2006 Finals- No team that is good enough to have a 2-0 series lead and a 13 point lead with 6:30 remaining should blow that lead. It's as simple as that. Part of this is attributable to what Wade did, which is an unusual performance for any superstar.

2005 Finals- Sheed leaving Horry for that 3 in game 5 was the difference, and Horry playing like a star that game in general with 21 points and 7 rebounds while making 5 threes and all the plays down the stretch including 13 points in the 4th and 5 in OT. This came down to a role player, and really carelessness on Sheed's part.

2000 Blazers- Again, if you have a 15 point lead in the 4th quarter of game 7, you simply shouldn't lost the game. While it's true that Shaq and Kobe had 9 points each in the 4th and made big plays all around, the role players were also making shots they had generally missed during the series. Either way, this doesn't come down to just 2 stars either. They happened to be mentally tough stars, which isn't always the case. You could have 2 stars and they may crumble in a moment like this. In fact, the Lakers were clearly just the mentally tougher team and that was the difference. This was proven as the Lakers won additional championships the next 2 years and the Blazers became the league's biggest underachievers. And I'd credit Phil Jackson for the Lakers mental toughness in this situation because they were hardly a mentally tough team prior to 2000. In fact, something I find interesting is that with this series and the Miami comeback, is it any coincidence that Phil and Riley were on the right side of the comebacks vs Dunleavy and Avery Johnson? I doubt it.

We all know how close the 1994 finals was, but that doesn't really matter much because neither finals team fit your criteria.

Did any of these teams need a superstar to win a title? No, they were right there and either choked, sometimes choked as bad as you can choke or had a deficiency exposed(Boston)



I think the Heat are winning another title. I'll have to think about a pick for the West more since I'm still undecided on OKC without Harden, but also worried about Manu's health.

No, you are confused. I said single superstar teams. Meaning that the 04 Pistons and 89, 90 Pistons do not qualify.

So that would be 3 out of 27.

Look. As I've said before, all of that stuff matters. I'd probably argue that after having a superstar....and legit 2nd guy...that coaching is next. And coaching might be even more important than I give credit to.

All of the stuff you say matters...but even if it was actually 25% of the time a single superstar team can win (which is what this thread is about...Iverson in 01)...that still is a huge difference. And...how can you argue for the 01 Sixers being on my side...when they had a great coach and a system and everything you are talking about. What they were clearly missing was that 2nd guy to take some of the pressure off Iverson. Mutombo was good, but you know I mean more than a glorified Tyson Chandler. Still not sure how you can argue the Sixers aren't better with prime Ray Allen...but that is a different debate.

Would you rather have Poppovich coaching the 09 and 10 Cavs...or have the exact same team with Gasol added....or pick another elite big man on that level because they would have had to play the Lakers in the finals.

I just don't see any way the 09 Cavs lose that Magic series if they had Gasol. In fact, I bet they would have won in 5. I don't think even Pop can make that big of a difference.

Bad matchups and a lack of lucky breaks happen to weaker teams in terms of talent more often.

Again, we are talking about single superstar teams..hence Iverson. Those 3 Pistons teams are in a different category.

[Dodonpa9]

AI wuz good, but my he fuuuucked himself up not coming off the benc at the end of he career

[PistolPete44]

Afrobe is a ****

[ShaqAttack3234]

No, you are confused. I said single superstar teams. Meaning that the 04 Pistons and 89, 90 Pistons do not qualify.

So what exactly is it you're arguing? Because those 3 teams don't fit the criteria of top 5 type number 1 guy. So are you conceding that teams with several all-star caliber players can win without a top 5 type? Because that was more what I was trying to argue, that these teams that don't fit 1 or the other part of your criteria have won. In which case all 6 teams qualify.

Look. As I've said before, all of that stuff matters. I'd probably argue that after having a superstar....and legit 2nd guy...that coaching is next. And coaching might be even more important than I give credit to.

I think that coaching in particular can really make the difference in those close playoff series, and it's why guys like Brown and D'Antoni won 60+ games multiple times in the regular season.

All of the stuff you say matters...but even if it was actually 25% of the time a single superstar team can win (which is what this thread is about...Iverson in 01)...that still is a huge difference. And...how can you argue for the 01 Sixers being on my side...when they had a great coach and a system and everything you are talking about. What they were clearly missing was that 2nd guy to take some of the pressure off Iverson. Mutombo was good, but you know I mean more than a glorified Tyson Chandler. Still not sure how you can argue the Sixers aren't better with prime Ray Allen...but that is a different debate.

I was actually only pointing out a technicality. The Sixers did have a superstar and an additional all-nba player. I wasn't trying to make a case that Philly should have won a title or that they look like a championship team on paper, because I don't believe either of those things.

I knew what you mean, I was just pointing out the irony of Philly actually having an additional all-nba player.

Would you rather have Poppovich coaching the 09 and 10 Cavs...or have the exact same team with Gasol added....or pick another elite big man on that level because they would have had to play the Lakers in the finals.

I just don't see any way the 09 Cavs lose that Magic series if they had Gasol. In fact, I bet they would have won in 5. I don't think even Pop can make that big of a difference.

It's a tough question, I think they're noticeably better in both scenarios (not in regular season W/L but as far as winning a title) I already considered the Cavs contenders in '09 and '10, never considered them the favorites, but I thought they were contenders.

It's tough to pass up a player of Gasol's caliber for a coach, but I've seen Pau when he's underutilized in Brown's offense, and I'm not sure how he'd do with Lebron's ball-dominance. Lebron playing with Bosh and Z is different. If Gasol tries to play their roles, then he's essentially the player he's been the last 2 seasons.

I see Cleveland beating Orlando with Pop, I doubt he'd continue to make the same mistakes like Brown did, and the series was close enough that those adjustments could have changed the outcome. I also am pretty damn sure Cleveland's offense would have had better movement. I don't see them choking the same way they did either.

I see both teams in the finals at the very least with Pop instead of Brown, and I do think they matched up pretty well with LA in '09 and possibly 2010. 2010 depends more on if Shaq gets Bynum into foul trouble, or if Bynum can stay in the game and Gasol gets go to go against Jamison.

Bad matchups and a lack of lucky breaks happen to weaker teams in terms of talent more often.

Every team can be prone to match up problems, and one thing I've learned from watching the NBA for 20 years is that match ups are an enormous part of it, more so than just sheer talent, and at least as much as who the better team in general is. That's how most upsets happen.

As far as luck, well take the 2002 Lakers vs the 2003 Lakers for example. The only reason the '02 team won and the '03 team didn't was luck. The '02 team had good luck and the '03 team had bad luck.

It doesn't diminish the championships that are close. I'm just trying to be realistic, and I honestly believe that in addition to being good and prepared, you also need luck unless you roll over the competition like the '01 Lakers or '83 Sixers.

[ILLsmak]

That was back when I didn't know the NBA was fixed or maybe I didn't want to accept it.

The 6ers got calls, no doubt. Especially vs the Bucks. But AI is an amazing player, one of my favorites because of his heart and relentlessness. He played a shitload of minutes, too.

Let's not act like that team was THE BEST TEAM they could have put around Iverson. It was more like the best team they could have put around him using bargain bin players.

Scrubs? No... they were vets. But let's not act like this was the type of team that should have made the Finals.

-Smak

[Nezty]

How about they played in the JV Eastern Conference at the time as well.

The Juggernauts where all out West.
Back then the real Finals was the WCF.

The irony being that no team in the West could even win one game against the Lakers but Philly did.

[Element]

The irony being that no team in the West could even win one game against the Lakers but Philly did.

No irony

It required Kobe to play his worst game of the entire postseason and AI to go god-mode for them to win a game against the Lakers

[Anaximandro1]

The team was far from mediocre, and A.I. did not carry the team.

the team is not championship material.Iverson led his team to the Finals. You can't ask for more

To win a championship,you need 1 Superstar+ 1 Star+good complementary players+lucky break

1 Superstar+good complementary players only works for big men


NBA Champions / players selected for the All-NBA Team
[CODE] Champions First Team Second Team Third Team

1991 Bulls Jordan - -
1992 Bulls Jordan Pippen -
1993 Bulls Jordan Pippen
1994 Rockets Hakeem - -
1995 Rockets - - Hakeem/Drexler
1996 Bulls Jordan/Pippen - -
1997 Bulls Jordan Pippen -
1998 Bulls Jordan - Pippen
1999 Spurs Duncan -
2000 Lakers Shaq Kobe -
2001 Lakers Shaq Kobe -
2002 Lakers Shaq/Kobe - -
2003 Spurs Duncan - -
2004 Pistons - B Wallace -
2005 Spurs Duncan - -
2006 Heat Shaq Wade -
2007 Spurs Duncan - -
2008 Celtics Garnett - Pierce
2009 Lakers Kobe - P Gasol
2010 Lakers Kobe - P Gasol
2011 Mavericks - Dirk -
2012 Heat LeBron - Wade[/CODE]

[Nezty]

No irony

It required Kobe to play his worst game of the entire postseason and AI to go god-mode for them to win a game against the Lakers

Regardless of any excuse it's still impresive. Irony because it was expected for Philly to get swept like the other teams.

[Straight_Ballin]

No player in the history of the game has ever carried a mediocre team to the finals like AI. They just weren't individuality that mentally strong enough to do it.

The Cavs teams with Bron were worlds better than the 01 Sixers.

The only misconception is kids not understanding exactly just how good AI was. Put the stat sheet down and go watch some of the games. The guy was so damn good that the Lakers needed to make Tyrone Lue have the same hairstyle just to attempt to get into AI's head. Put prime Shaq on the 2001 Sixers and what happens?

[sportsfan76]

No player in the history of the game has ever carried a mediocre team to the finals like AI. They just weren't individuality that mentally strong enough to do it.

The Cavs teams with Bron were worlds better than the 01 Sixers.

The only misconception is kids not understanding exactly just how good AI was. Put the stat sheet down and go watch some of the games. The guy was so damn good that the Lakers needed to make Tyrone Lue have the same hairstyle just to attempt to get into AI's head. Put prime Shaq on the 2001 Sixers and what happens?

I have to agree, aside from AI below is the rest of the starters from 01 team

PG...Eric Snow

SF.....Tyrone Hill

PF,,,,,,,,George Lynch

C....Mutumbo


The Bench Players

Raja Bell

Matt Geiger

Buford

[Dbrog]

Judging by OPs logic, CP underachieved when it was just him and Chandler (West was injured) . Come on man...AI's teammates just weren't very good as mentioned by KBlaze