Four Components of a Great Basketball Team

62
rate this page

By oneal1122


The key to winning

There are four things that a great basketball must have in order to win a championship at the high school, collegiate or professional level. Many experts feel that a superstar element has to be present to win a championship, but the 2004 Detroit Pistons proved that a team can win with five good players and no superstars.

First, a winning team must have a solid low-post player. A low-post center or power-forward who is a good scorer with his back to the basket will command a double-team, and this will leave spot-up-shooters open on all areas of the floor. He doesn't have to be an all-star caliber player, but he will need to score in double digits consistently and effectively pass out of the double-team.

Second, every great team has long-range shooters. Shooters at both guard spots and at small forward are essential to knock down open shots created by the double- teams. There is nothing worse than a fundamentally inept team that can't hit open shots.

Third and most important, a great team will need fundamental and solid point guard play. Very few teams have been able to get away with not having a solid point guard and win a championship. The only two teams to come to mind are Chicago Bulls and the Los Angeles Lakers. They had two of the greatest combo guards in the history of the game (Jordan and Bryant respectively). The point guard is an extention of the coach on the floor, and he has to be able to diagnose what the team needs on the floor at any given time. He has to know when to speed the game up, slow the game down, provide scoring when the offense breaks down and know his personnels' strengths and weaknesses. A true great point guard is always looking for the hot hand from one of his teammates.

Fourth and last, great teams have great defense. Defense is not about talent, it's about effort. Effort to move your feet in order to keep your defender in front of you, effort to grab every single rebound both offensive and defensive or effort to dive for every loose ball on the floor. Defense is about playing the game for your teammates; both unselfishly and passionately.

Teams that play with these four ingredients will always have a chance to win a championship at any level of competition. Take away any one of the these four elements and you will see the difference between a great team and a mediocre one.



Comments

RSS for comments on this Hub Small RSS Icon

Marquis Moody  says:
2 months ago

Derek Fisher(for the Lakers) is a great Point Guard dude.

I don't see how you can say he wasn't at least solid. The Triangle was made for Jordan/Pippen and Kobe/(Shaq)Odom to dominate the ball. The Point Guard in the triangle isn't even really the Point Guard most of the time. Most of the time, the Point Guard is the 3, or SF. Phil Jackson created the formula for the perfect basketball team. A point guard that doesn't make mistakes(a la Derek Fisher and "Hollywood" Ron Harper), a big athletic three with playmaking ability, a superstar - preferably a combo guard - and specialty players or players that have a handful of abilities but are limited in each.

Name me three Centers from the Bulls' 1st and 2nd 3peat.

You would probably have a hard time doing that. The Centers and Power Forwards were simply there to A) put fear in other teams, B) rebound/defend. It wasn't until Rodman hit the scene that Phil found he could win without Jordan and Pippen DOMINATING the ball nearly 100% of the time. Rodman was a very smart offensive player and probably could have been much better than his career offensive numbers indicated, but he sacrificed for the team possibly. In other words, he wasn't like a Ben Wallace who has next to no idea what is going on in any given offensive set.

The Chicago Bulls never had a dominant scoring post up player. Rodman was probably the best hustle man and rebounder ever, but aside from that they had no definitively "good" post players on defense or offense. None of them stood out, ever.

They all did however come together for the common purpose of winning championships and playing as a team.

This is the main reason why I disagree with most of your article. The Pistons' found this also, if only for a season, and they didn't have a good offensive post either(Sheed is average in the post, he's mainly a jumpshooting big). Sheed's post game is, for lack of better words, lacking. He is just a big, tough, burly player that can play defense and has a unique skillset for a big man. However, he apparently provided enough punch near the post, midrange, and from 3 with his ability to spread the floor, to make space for guards to penetrate.

If everything you were saying is true and the honest to God keys to winning championships and being a great basketball team - because that's what great basketball teams do - then the Lakers would have swept them and beat them in every game by 30.

The Lakers at the time had 2 Superstars, a "good point guard"(since Fish apparently isn't good), and Karl Malone who was still a freaking beast and also a 3rd superstar for the Lakers. They had not just a player who could score in double figures consistently, but could have probably hit TRIPLE figures if he wanted to(Shaq) and a player that - next to Tim Duncan - was probably the most consistent player to come out in the past two decades(Malone).

What brought that Laker team together? Each of them, Payton, Malone, Shaq, and Kobe, all wanted another championship for themselves to either create - in Payton & Malones case - or to cement their legacy, which would be Kobe and Shaqs' case. The Pistons' wanted that championship for the city of Detroit, the people in Illinois, and the DETROIT PISTONS, also known as THE TEAM they were playing for.

Honestly, I believe you must have some level of talent to win a championship - which the Pistons did have - and the sense of players being a unit. Hell, the Pistons may as well have had a superstar, as they had 4 All-Stars in their starting line-up.

Ultimately, Phil Jackson and Mitch Kupchak have been pleading to Kobe for more time to surround him with talent for the past 2-3 years. Kobe didn't get help until two weeks ago in Pau Gasol. What was the result before the injury to Andrew Bynum and before Pau Gasol arrived? The Lakers, who had built chemistry over the past 3 years, were the #1 seeded team in what is probably the toughest a conference has ever been in NBA history. Kobe is finally not playing to win a championship for himself, but for the team, and that is what pushes superstars over the top.

When Michael Jordan figured out that he couldn't win on his own and began to give up the ball more, he found his team to be pretty good. Championship worthy. It took time though, as do all dynasties in modern sports as evidenced by the two 3-peat Bulls', Rockets' of '94 and '95, Lakers of the 80's, Celtics of the 80's, and the current San Antonio Spurs.

Talented players at certain positions are great, yes, but high-character players coming together for a common goal and meshing their skills together is the ultimate formula for a great basketball team. Not player A) who can post up, with player B) who is a solid point guard, mixed with player C) who can shoot the longball.

The team then comes predictable, as you know what that player can do at any time.

The Pistons' of 2004 are the model for a great team, but if they had a leader... somebody who was head and shoulders above the rest of the players on the team and commanded their respect, they would likely be a dynasty(like San Antonio is).

So, in conclusion, a team full of basketball PLAYERS headed for a common shared goal will be much more effective than a team full of superstars or a team with the afformentioned skills that certain players must have to win that you have mentioned. A leader, however, is a necessity if those players want to build on the success, which is in my opinion why the Pistons' haven't won since 2004 and lost to the Cavaliers in 2007(another case of a leader leading a team set on a common goal).

oneal1122 profile image

oneal1122  says:
2 months ago

You make some excellent points, but I'm sorry, Fisher is a jump-shooting point guard who can't create opportunities for his teammates because he doesn't penetrate or finish well around the basket. He is a solid defender though.

As for Wallace, you forgot what he did in Portland. You can put Wallace up against the best of them (Duncan, Garnett or Boozer), and still no one can stop him when he decides use his post game. You are right to some degree though, he shoots too many threes.

Last, the Bulls didn't need a great center when they had Michael Jordan. Whenever he touched the ball, three Bulls players were always open. ALWAYS. Mike got triple coverage, Pippen got single coverage, and the other three players were left open most of the time. Moreover, Mike didn't start winning championships until he got some talent around him (Pippen, Grant, Armstong). It's hard to win when your talent level is as good as the average CBA player, and Jordan had to shoot excessively just to be able to compete early on.

Marquis Moody  says:
9 days ago

Sorry it took me so long to find this.

I knew you'd respond, but I lost the page.

You made some great, great points. I - for the most part - agreed with most of what you said. Today, this may be the formula for winning a championship, as it pretty much has been for the past 10 years. Basketball is apparently different now and I'm just a young kid watching it evolve from its older days.

Regardless, this was a solid blog and a great read, just thought that that needed to be said. Thanks.

Submit a Comment

Members and Guests

Sign in or sign up and post using a hubpages account.


optional



working