(Published by Yardbarker.com on 03/10/2010)
The word ‘contender’ gets bandied about too often in NBA circles. According to those in the know, teams such as Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Utah and Chicago are ‘contenders’ for the upcoming season. My understating of a contender is a team that is capable of winning an NBA championship, and no disrespect to the teams above but neither will be hoisting the Larry O’Brien trophy in 2011. The reality is there are only a few teams each season, generally two or three at the most, that have a legitimate shot at capturing an NBA title. And this year is no different.
With the seven game series format in the playoffs the NBA is not a hard sport to predict. Don’t believe me? Ask my poor wife, who must endure my predictions each October and the gloating that usually follows in July.
But under a system that ensures the best team will progress, how does one reliably identify who these ‘best’ teams are? This is what I hope to answer.
My objective: to create an easy-to-use tool that can clearly distinguish the non-contenders from the true contenders.
There are certain qualities that an NBA champion must possess. With that in mind I have identified five key elements that will form the basis of my theory; DEFENSE, EXPERIENCE, DEPTH, BIG-GAME PLAYERS and the X-FACTOR.
Let me explain.
DEFENSE
It’s no secret that defense wins championships in the NBA, but more specifically it’s interior defense that is the critical element. If a supposed contender fronts up to a season with a thin/small frontline (ex. Atlanta/Utah/Phoenix), they might as well pack their bags and go home because come the playoffs they aren’t going anywhere. Poor interior defense means no title and it’s as simple as that.
EXPERIENCE
To succeed in the NBA you must first fail. Winning is a process and valuable lessons need be learnt before you can take your place among the NBA’s elite. Whilst championship experience isn’t a necessity, a team must have at least three regular rotation players with deep playoff experience before they can realistically expect to contend for a title.
DEPTH
A thin bench will only get you so far in the NBA. There are exceptions, like the Lakers of the last two years, but they had the luxury of an ultra talented starting unit and Lamar Odom off the bench. But history shows most NBA champions sport a deep bench, and if you want to compete with the big boys you will need at least three players of real quality coming off the pine.
BIG-GAME PLAYERS
What do Kobe Bryant, Paul Pierce, Dwayne Wade and Manu Ginobli have in common? Apart from each winning an NBA title in the last five years, they’re all elite big-game players. To climb the NBA mountain requires a special player of this ilk who can take the game over on the biggest stage. But it doesn’t stop there; you’ll need this big-game quality in some of your role players too. Like a Fisher, Posey, Horry or Payton. A team without this will come up short in their quest for a title.
X-FACTOR
All championship teams have an aura about them; that is, they have something unique that makes them special. With the Lakers of the last two years (although I think they got off lightly in 2009 with Garnett’s injury) they were led by the ruthless Kobe Bryant hell-bent on furnishing his legacy, with the best number two in the league by his side; the 2008 Celtics were ferocious defensively with three Hall of Famers in their prime; and the 2007 Spurs were a clinical machine with no chinks in their armour. This is what I call the ‘X-Factor’; a defining characteristic that will set you apart from the competition.
THE RATING SYSTEM
My rating system works like this. For a given team, each of the five elements above will be assigned a rating of A, B or C. The meanings are as follows:
A – Championship Calibre
B – Average
C – Sub par
The way I see it, any team that scores less than four A’s and one B is not a legitimate title contender. Score a C in any category and that will automatically remove you from the discussion. This may seem harsh but in order to identify the cream of the crop a rigorous standard must be applied.
RATING THE FIVE BEST TEAMS IN THE NBA
I will now apply this tool to the five best teams in the NBA. Some people may question Portland’s inclusion but I maintain that if healthy, and that’s a big if, they are the only team equipped to challenge LA in the west.
LOS ANGELES LAKERS
A - DEFENSE
A - EXPERIENCE
A - DEPTH
A - BIG-GAME PLAYERS
A - X-FACTOR
Total: Five A’s
Comment: LA solidified their bench in the offseason with the acquisitions of Steve Blake, Matt Barnes and Theo Ratliff. As a result, this Laker team will be a notch better than last season and even better than that with a healthy Andrew Bynum. Yikes.
MIAMI HEAT
A - DEFENSE
A - EXPERIENCE
A - DEPTH
A - BIG-GAME PLAYERS
A - X-FACTOR
Total: Five A’s
Comment: People will nitpick but the reality is they’re going to be a nightmare for any team to handle. Concern has been raised about interior defense, but let me just say this; the Chicago Bulls won six NBA championships with average to below-average players manning the middle. The Bulls did it collectively, as will the Heat. Miami has some very good individual defenders in LeBron, Haslem, Anthony and Chalmers, and freed from the burden of carrying their teams, Wade and Bosh should also join this group. Combined with the fact that Erik Spoelstra is an exceptional defensive coach – last season the Heat ranked second in fewest points allowed per game (94ppg) despite the lack of quality on the roster – and this Heat squad should be one of the best defensive teams in the NBA.
BOSTON CELTICS
A - DEFENSE
A - EXPERIENCE
A - DEPTH
A - BIG-GAME PLAYERS
B - X-FACTOR
Total: Five A’s, one B
Comment: Show me a team that has won an NBA championship when most of their key players are past their prime? It doesn’t happen, and with two super teams to compete against, it won’t happen this year either.
ORLANDO MAGIC
A - DEFENSE
A - EXPERIENCE
A - DEPTH
B - BIG-GAME PLAYERS
B - X-FACTOR
Total: Three A’s, two B’s
Comment: There’s something lacking here. For mine it’s an elite go-to scorer, and I don’t think Dwight Howard will ever be that guy. The Vince Carter experiment was a bad one, and if they can’t turn his ending contract into the type of player they need (Gilbert Arenas?), they’re in trouble.
PORTLAND TRAIL BLAZERS
A - DEFENSE
B - EXPERIENCE
A - DEPTH
A - BIG-GAME PLAYERS
B - X-FACTOR
Total: Three A’s, two B’s
Comment: They have the size to challenge LA in the west, they’ve got a big-game player in Brandon Roy and they have a deep roster, but unfortunately all their key players are injury prone. At full strength they would be dangerous.
CONCLUSION
In LA and Miami you have two teams of the highest quality, and this is reflected in the results. Although Boston could contend for a title in a weaker year, their heavy reliance on players past their prime will rob them of the crucial ‘X-Factor’ that champions typically possess.
Therefore, although time will ultimately be the judge, I predict that the only true title contenders for 2011 are the Los Angeles Lakers and Miami Heat. In the case of an injury to a key player, then Orlando/Boston in the east, or Portland/Dallas/Oklahoma in the west could step up. But so long as either LA or Miami are in the finals with their key pieces intact, that’s where the championship will land in 2011.
And who would win an LA versus Miami finals match-up? Sorry, I am willing to stick my neck out but not that far; it’s just too early to call. But for what it’s worth, one thing I will say; a lot depends on the health of Andrew Bynum.
