I looked at the last few NBA champs and it's interesting to look at these teams three seasons prior to the season they won the championship.
'19-20 Denver overlap with '22-23 Denver squad:
MP3 (rookie), Jokic, and Murray
Coach Malone
'18-19 Golden State overlap with '21-22 squad:
Curry, Klay, Green, Looney
Coach Kerr
'17-18 Bucks overlap with '20-21 squad:
Giannis, Middleton
Different head coach
'16-17 Lakers overlap with '19-20 squad:
Zero overlap in players or coaches
'15-16 Raptors overlap with '18-19 squad:
Lowry, JoVal, Powell, Wright
Different head coach
Interesting to see how much churn on these teams happened in the three seasons preceding their title run.
Does continuity really matter that much?
Re: Does continuity really matter that much?
Good post and good question, Q. Looking at your list, only one of the five really runs counter to the view that continuity is a key ingredient to competing for championships. The Lakers are the one exception, but their situation is anomalous because they did went out and got the second best player to ever play the game and paired him to probably the best big outside in the game when he’s health (outside of Jokic).
The Bucks might look like another exception, but I’d argue that even the Bucks are an example of the importance of continuity. As I see it, the key to continuity is knowing who your top two cornerstone players are and then adding and subtracting around them. Back in the day, the Bulls drafted MJ and two years later drafted Pippen and Grant. The organization was smart enough to know that the key for them was keeping Jordan and Pippen together. Grant was a key to the first three championships, but then they brought in Rodman for the next three. For the Bucks, it was Giannis and Middleton. They then went out and got Jrue as the missing piece. The Denver, Golden State, and Toronto examples you listed all underscore the importance of have continuity in your core - core three for Denver, a core of four for GS.
The issue for the Wolves is figuring out who their two or three top guys are and keeping them together over time like Jokic and Murray in Denver or Curry, Klay and Green in GS. The first question for the Wolves is who their #1 is. At this point I think we’d all agree it’s Ant. But he’s only 21 years old and not ready in my view. I don’t think we know yet for sure who our #2 should be going forward. The front office and many of us seem to believe it’s KAT, but that’s open to legitimate debate. I also think it’s important to have continuity in style of play. As the teams you mentioned (other than the Lakers) built around their #1 and another one or two core guys, they didn’t fundamentally alter their style of play. I think what set the Wolves back, as TC conceded, was the substantial change in style of play required to accommodate Rudy. I think TC, who emphasized continuity, wants to spend at least another season developing the team in the style that suits Rudy. I think it’s a mistake, but I understand it.
The Bucks might look like another exception, but I’d argue that even the Bucks are an example of the importance of continuity. As I see it, the key to continuity is knowing who your top two cornerstone players are and then adding and subtracting around them. Back in the day, the Bulls drafted MJ and two years later drafted Pippen and Grant. The organization was smart enough to know that the key for them was keeping Jordan and Pippen together. Grant was a key to the first three championships, but then they brought in Rodman for the next three. For the Bucks, it was Giannis and Middleton. They then went out and got Jrue as the missing piece. The Denver, Golden State, and Toronto examples you listed all underscore the importance of have continuity in your core - core three for Denver, a core of four for GS.
The issue for the Wolves is figuring out who their two or three top guys are and keeping them together over time like Jokic and Murray in Denver or Curry, Klay and Green in GS. The first question for the Wolves is who their #1 is. At this point I think we’d all agree it’s Ant. But he’s only 21 years old and not ready in my view. I don’t think we know yet for sure who our #2 should be going forward. The front office and many of us seem to believe it’s KAT, but that’s open to legitimate debate. I also think it’s important to have continuity in style of play. As the teams you mentioned (other than the Lakers) built around their #1 and another one or two core guys, they didn’t fundamentally alter their style of play. I think what set the Wolves back, as TC conceded, was the substantial change in style of play required to accommodate Rudy. I think TC, who emphasized continuity, wants to spend at least another season developing the team in the style that suits Rudy. I think it’s a mistake, but I understand it.
Re: Does continuity really matter that much?
The thing about the Bucks that is interesting is that it wasn't obvious Giannis and Middleton were cornerstone players until probably their 4th and 5th seasons respectively. Middleton was good and Giannis was improving, but it wasn't abundantly clear that these two would go on to so much success until Giannis took that big leap after three years. Of course they still needed Jrue Holiday to really take another step, but Giannis and Middleton were together from the beginning.Lipoli390 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2023 4:39 pm Good post and good question, Q. Looking at your list, only one of the five really runs counter to the view that continuity is a key ingredient to competing for championships. The Lakers are the one exception, but their situation is anomalous because they did went out and got the second best player to ever play the game and paired him to probably the best big outside in the game when he’s health (outside of Jokic).
The Bucks might look like another exception, but I’d argue that even the Bucks are an example of the importance of continuity. As I see it, the key to continuity is knowing who your top two cornerstone players are and then adding and subtracting around them. Back in the day, the Bulls drafted MJ and two years later drafted Pippen and Grant. The organization was smart enough to know that the key for them was keeping Jordan and Pippen together. Grant was a key to the first three championships, but then they brought in Rodman for the next three. For the Bucks, it was Giannis and Middleton. They then went out and got Jrue as the missing piece. The Denver, Golden State, and Toronto examples you listed all underscore the importance of have continuity in your core - core three for Denver, a core of four for GS.
The issue for the Wolves is figuring out who their two or three top guys are and keeping them together over time like Jokic and Murray in Denver or Curry, Klay and Green in GS. The first question for the Wolves is who their #1 is. At this point I think we’d all agree it’s Ant. But he’s only 21 years old and not ready in my view. I don’t think we know yet for sure who our #2 should be going forward. The front office and many of us seem to believe it’s KAT, but that’s open to legitimate debate. I also think it’s important to have continuity in style of play. As the teams you mentioned (other than the Lakers) built around their #1 and another one or two core guys, they didn’t fundamentally alter their style of play. I think what set the Wolves back, as TC conceded, was the substantial change in style of play required to accommodate Rudy. I think TC, who emphasized continuity, wants to spend at least another season developing the team in the style that suits Rudy. I think it’s a mistake, but I understand it.
The absolute ideal scenario for the Wolves is that McDaniels surprises us in the same way Mikal Bridges suddenly showed how he could be a big-time scorer after years being a high-level 3 & D wing. Then the whole KAT/Gobert thing is only a bridge to whatever comes next with these two as the cornerstones. But that's one expensive bridge!
Re: Does continuity really matter that much?
I agree, Q. Have to give the Bucks organization lots of credit for showing patience with Giannis. I really liked TC’s emphasis on patience. He repeated that word multiple times in his interview with Danny B. In my view the Wolves need to focus their patience on Ant, Jaden, but also on Naz and Minott. If I were TC I’d have only one more year of patience with KAT and Rudy.