Sports authorities normally agree that it takes two superstar players to make up a championship team, I offer a different theory. I think the "play" is more important than the player. Think about it, other than the Pistons, all of the most recent NBA champions depended on a play not a player that was virtually unstoppable. The Lakers- Shaq in the paint The Spurs- Duncan's inside work The Rockets- The Dreamshake The Bulls- Jordan's fadeaway The Jazz were perennial championship contenders, the pick and roll was virtually unstoppable, they just ran into teams who had a stronger "play" that theirs. There have been many teams loaded with talent like Sacramento and Dallas, but without the "play" do they win championships?
Interesting, I've never thought of it quite that way. Then again, all the great "plays" you mention just happen to be associated with incredible players: Jordan, Dream, Stockton, Malone, Duncan, Shaq. It may be a chicken or egg type situation.
True but these players could not get the "play" set up without the proper personnel. If it were the players, they would win ever year, right?
Interesting, but you have to admit that 'Dreamshake' is much more catchy than 'Duncan's inside work'.
Abdul-Jabaar: skyhook. I have to agree with the whole chicken/egg sentiment in this thread. Part of what makes a great player is having a signature move that works more often than it does not, hence great players do equate for championships.
the Moses Malone play (when he took Rocks to the finals): throw arms up in the air, losing ball awkwardly, wait for whistle. Go to freethrow line. the 02/03 Rockets play: Dribble out the shot clock, find most heavily defended shot. Take shot.
