“Super-teams” have been part of the NBA since the league was formed. George Mikan’s Minneapolis Lakers were the league’s first dynasty in the early 1950s, followed by Bill Russell’s Celtics, who won 11 titles in 13 years. The Lakers and Celtics dominated the ’80s, the Bulls owned the ’90s, the Lakers and Spurs took over next, then LeBron James went to Miami and Kevin Durant joined the Warriors.
The only decade without a repeat champion was the 1970s, when fan interest reached a low point.
While dominant teams have long been a part of NBA culture, they haven’t been controversial until recent years. That’s probably because the earlier dynasties were built through drafting and trades, while the more recent versions have involved star players deciding they want to team up.
Tim Bontemps of The Washington Post recently spoke to players about the super-team issue and found most accept it as part of the modern NBA.
“If you don’t have a super-team, or three superstars, or three All-Stars on your team, it’s very hard to win,” Wizards point guard John Wall said. Washington has won just three playoff series and hasn’t advanced past the second round since Wall joined the team. The last four years, he watched James lead the Cavaliers to Eastern Conference titles.
Paul George passed up a chance to help build a new super-team in Los Angeles this summer when he opted to re-sign with the Thunder. He hears the criticism from former players who don’t like to see the modern stars aligning, but he says it’s necessary for any of them to have a chance at a ring.
“Who would we be fooling if we went out alone and tried to go up against the Warriors? The best guy in our league right now couldn’t do it,” George said. “[James] got swept [in the 2018 Finals]. So that just goes to show you at this point what it takes to win. Because you need guys that are alike talent-wise and skill set-wise to win championships.”
Proponents of super-teams say they promote fan interest and help create a story line for each season. There’s evidence to support that argument, but there may also be a point where interest fades. Television ratings for the NBA Finals have declined in each of the past three years. After cresting at 11.6 in 2015, they dropped to an average of 11.4, 11.3 and then 10.0 last season when the Warriors’ sweep seemed like a foregone conclusion.
We want to get your opinion. Do super-teams make the league more or less interesting? Is the idea of top free agents conspiring to play together good for the NBA or should the league office take steps to prevent it? Please leave your feedback in the space below.
It is not a good thing to know the champion before the season even starts. We are on year 3 of this now and the sooner it ends the better
But if it was your team your would be loving it. So let us warriors fan live it up while we can.
Not really. I’m a capitals fan and seeing the fight it actually took to win a championship makes it hard to see any thrill in the warriors blowing teams out of the water. You should be winning the finals without losing a single game. There’s no competition
The difference between the classic powerhouses and the superteams today is that the players manipulate the system to their advantage. Jordan would have never left the Bulls to play with Bird, McHale and Parish. Thomas and Dumars would have never left the Pistons to join a rival. The GMs back in the day had more of a fingerprint on roster construction and development. We started to see a shift with the Lakers in the Shaq era. LeBron joining the Heat with Bosh was what really tipped the scales. The whole “not one championship, but 2, but 3 …” it was like they gave every other team in the league and their fan bases a middle finger. And that, for me, as well as a lot of the old school NBA legends, is what was off putting. Build your team the right way. The Spurs did that. The Warriors did that (prior to Durant). The Heat and Cavs did not. And I think that’s why so many root for those orchestrated foregone conclusion champions to fall flat on their face.
Why do people hate on the Warriors for supplementing the talent they drafted through free agency? That is literally the blueprint for success in every sport. They built a winning culture, the Bay Area is a pretty sweet place to live for young rich dudes, and they have an awesome coach and front office. Of course free agents are going to want to go there. Everyone else needs to up their scouting game as none of the all stars they drafted were number one overall picks. Every team in the league passed on Draymond.
You can’t say that Jordan would never have done that because he was never put in the position to have to make that decision. If the 00s Cavs had been as good as the 90s bulls there is no way LeBron would have left. If Jordan wasn’t drafted by the Bulls he wouldn’t have had 6 Rings.
Scottie Pippen didn’t join the Bulls until after M.J. already had 2 rings. M.J. got 6 all with the Bulls and nobody can erase it from the record books. He didn’t need to look for a superteam. He was on it. Unless you count Toni Kukoc as a superstar, the Bulls only had 2.
My fault, Pippen did play with M.J. all 6 championships. Chicago did not win the title in 1993-94 when M.J. played baseball. I think M.J. will always be the GOAT. A lot of people think so.
Look at the Bulls players back then. Dave Corzine,Bill Cartwright, Charles Oakley, Dennis Rodman, Craig Hodges, John Paxson, Steve Kerr. Those don’t sound like all star names to me.
I guess you could consider Ron Harper, James Edwards, and Bill Wennington as superstars.
The Warriors just drafted well and added Durant. It’s like the Knicks building with Ntilikina,Porzingis, and Knox and adding Butler for example. The Warriors just drafted really well, other teams could have had Curry,Klay, and definitely Green so we can’t blame them for drafting well. Durant is playing team ball on the Warriors and is part of the system there.
Nailed it.
Except for the Knicks part.
I was thinking the same thing. The core of Golden State was built through drafting well, and supplemented through a free agent, so I don’t have a problem with them. I’m a Raptors fan, and when Toronto gets eliminated by Cleveland, I pull for the Warriors. What’s turned me away from watching the NBA as much as I used to is the free agents colluding to band together to form a super team, which takes a lot of parity out of the league.
First post from you that actually makes sense. Kudos.
There’s no fault to the warriors. Like others said, they drafted/developed well and signed a great free agent (Durant). Durant should have had some self respect and not want to join a team coming off of the greatest regular season ever and a win away from finals champs, who he almost beat by the way…. and the league should not have allowed Durant to sign to keep the competitiveness of the league. It’s no fun to watch.
He was a free agent he can sign wherever he wants. The Warriors suited his game perfectly. The Warriors were going to need Durant regardless, they wouldn’t have gone through the West the past 2 years with just Curry,Klay, and Green. Maybe 2017 but not this past season.
So you’d be okay if lebron decided he wanted to join them? That wouldn’t be harmful to his legacy at all? That wouldn’t be harmful to the league?
Durant and Curry are Lebron’s rivals so it would look pretty stupid.
You just avoided the point of it…. I hope the NBA falls flat as long as they let great players join already great teams. Durant joined an already super team. Built naturally or not, they were a super team and made for great basketball to watch. The league was competitive. Durant doesn’t have any heart I guess. I don’t consider a 2 time NBA champ. I consider him a historically great player who joined an already historically great team to get his rings. Any great player could do that(join the warriors) to get rings. Again, the point isn’t the warriors are at fault. They’ve drafted and should be able to sign whoever. The league shouldn’t allow it. You keep thinking the league is exciting, watch an all star team beat up on other teams. It’s like USA basketball in the olympics. Yeah there’s a chance one or two teams beat them, but it’s not likely.
Read recently KD decided he wanted to go to Golden State the day after OKC lost to them in the western conference finals. Draymond, Steph, and Klay were recruitng him during the season.
Food for thought. 1997 Marlins. link to infoplease.com
Hold the phone. “… the 70s, when fan interest reached a low point” ?? Arthur don’t believe anything David Stern says!
The 70s featured a superior brand of NBA basketball. If you throw in the ABA and a college basketball scene where every team in the tournament had a different style, the game exploded*– and there was NO boring dynasty at any level.
In the 70s, as opposed to the 80s, there was a game on TV every saturday, with a legit 1-on-1 NBA tournament during halftime (win at 20, by 4– it was relatively grueling compared to today’s fluff). The refs did not play favorites, and the decade’s style did not devolve into a nearly comical dog-and-pony show with the same teams at the end– the only time, besides Christmas, when the NBA was on TV.
Also more than a few white Americans were still involved and did not seem athletically hampered by their race. It was balanced.
*Will link to a site (below) with in-game per-game attendence figures showing a spike in the 70s, a levelling off 1980-85, then another spike later in the 80s. Then the limits of coliseum construction is reached.
link to apbr.org
Hold the phone. The 70s featured a superior brand of NBA basketball, especially if you throw in the ABA, and a college basketball scene where every team in the tournament had a different style, and NO boring dynasty at any level. In-game attendence rose the fastest in the 70s*!
In the 70s, as opposed to the 80s, there was a game on TV every saturday, with a legit 1-on-1 NBA tournament during halftime (win at 20, by 4– it was relatively grueling compared to today’s fluff). The refs did not play favorites, and the decade’s style did not devolve into a nearly comical dog-and-pony show with the same teams at the end– the only time, besides Christmas, when the NBA was on TV.
Also more than a few white Americans were still involved and did not seem athletically hampered by their race… excepting that some crucial knee surgeries had not been invented yet.
As for numbers. The NBA’s first decade of record-keeping finished in 1959 with a 5.1 thousand per-game average. Ten years later, it was 6.5k.
But by 1979, it shot to 10.8k! Add to that, the ABA, which went from 2.8k in 1968 to 7.3k in midseason 1976. So for 1976,
Between 1980-1985, attendence levelled and was not balanced by TV exposure. Then it bursted to 15.1 by 1989 with 4 expansion teams– but no ABA of course. The MJ effect?– bit a bit early for that. IDK
Then perhaps the limits of coliseum construction where gains can be by TV
audience only. 1999, 16.8k; 2009, 17.5k; 2014, 17.4k per game avg.
Sorry about the dupe, not sure what happened, I thought I lost this one fruitlessly looking up 1976 figures.
Anyway. Things were just right when I was young is I guess ultimately my point. You kids will say the same thing in time.
I remember in the 60’s we didn’t even have cable tv. Don’t remember when it started. The ABA merged with Denver, Indiana, San Antonio, and New Jersey, and they are still in the NBA. The early days of the merger, the ABA teams practically got no benefits. They were fun to watch.
The ABA had the fun rep but were never on TV that I recall.
I think cable came into play gradually starting in the mid, late 80s, including the NBA on a lesser channel.
Don’t particularly like superteams, but don’t much mind who wins the title, really. All I care is to watch games with incredible plays & players, having fun & been entertained, dynasties are part of the game, first was Lakers then Celtics, then Lakers/Celtics, Bulls, Lakers, Spurs & now Warriors, so it has always happened. No difference if the teams are build by FA’s or trades. Look the Celtics now by draft, Rozier, Smart, JB & JT, trade Kyrie, FA’s Hayward & Horford. Philly is going all by draft Simmons, Fultz, RoCo, Zhaire, Dario & Embiid but they both will be superteams, different path same result.
I don’t like the idea of the “super team” at all. The measurement for any concept should be ‘is it good for the game’. Over time people have become too immediate focused to look long term. The number one goal of anything the league does should be to preserve the game.
To me there are two main problems with super teams that have to do with the longevity of the game; First, it’s not that a super team is bad for the game per se, it’s the perception that players colluded to make it easier to win a championship and get your ring or the get a ring at any cost maneuver. Second, The colluding players tend to only pick certain places to land, again giving the perception that if you’re not a ‘favored’ player destination, forget ever having a super team.
I think that both of these are bad for the game.