Define "Superteam"

[Laimbeer]

Lots of talk of wht they do and don't win, but what exactly constitutes a "Superteam"?

[swyftdahoe]

3 max-ish players.

[The Servant]

Any team that has stars in number of 3, regardless of how broken down and over the hill players are, regardless of them being able to stay healthy, regardless of a lack of any and all role players or chemistry.

If you have 3 people that made an all star game at some point and put them on a crap tier roster as a "BIG THREE", it must be super!

As long as you don't take into account standings, post season success etc, they are SUPER!!!!!! TEAM!!!! BIG THREEEEE!!!!! OMG!

[Sealab2024]

A team, which is super.

[The Master]

Contender-level team that person X doesn't like.

[uncleduck13]

It should be at least 2 (current) top 10 players + a (current) top 25 player

But it’s more based off past reputation than anything. Any 3 former (but not too far removed) All-Stars/Superstars get labeled a super team.

[Enso]

A team that has at least 1 superstar, 1 borderline superstar and a star.

And it has to be a team that Kevin Durant doesn’t sign off on.

[Laimbeer]

3 max-ish players.

What annual salary makes a player "max-ish"?

[Black Jack]

A team with a big 3 that doesn’t include Bradley Beal and 57 yr old Durant

[Lalouie]

i think "superteam" is a millenium term started possibly with boston(kg/allen/pierce),,,but it was codified by lebron/bosh/wade. that is when the term took off.

ie,,,,a team structurally created by players as a kind of "club" to manually change the odds of winning it all. "manually" as opposed to automatically by FO who tends to let things play out as if on auto pilot. automatically as in being governed by a set of "rules" about how player movement is managed.

neither is better than the other since both players and owners are governed by a bias towards numbers instead of chemistry.

the term then became applicable(by media and fans) to teams BEFORE the millenium. personally i think it was used for those past teams as an excuse for today's players who are too damn lazy to deal with their circumstance, and so they just GIVE UP. but in fact that is wrong - teams in the past were composed of players who simply dealt with it as best they could, which is not in the dna of today's teams......superteams today are built on a buddy system, whereas in the 20th century you didn't get to choose your family

[bovice]

when 3 or more star players (all-star caliber) come together inorganically. 2010 heat, 2007 boston, 2012 lakers, etc...

so okc's russ, kd, harden isn't a superteam. lakers magic, kaj, worthy isn't a superteam

[zimpy27]

This is how I define it:

Superteam is about the team. Therefore it starts with 5 players to me. If a team has 5 players that are all top 10 for their position then that's a superteam. You could simplify to 5 players in top 50.

Now sometimes teams don't have 5 guys at top 10 for their position or 5 guys in top 50. But that team may have 1-4 guys who are more talented players, so this is how I made it work.

5 guys in top 50
4 guys in top 40, 1 in top 75
3 guys in top 30 (all star level), 2 in top 75
2 guys in top 15 (all NBA level), 3 in top 75
1 guy in top 5 (MVP level), 4 in top 75


Why are the extras in top 75? Well there are 30 teams in NBA with a starting 5, therefore 150 starting positions. I think your 5 best players needs to be at least average starting level to be a superteam.


Anyway, you may disagree but that's how I'd define superteam.

[Lalouie]

when 3 or more star players (all-star caliber) come together inorganically. 2010 heat, 2007 boston, 2012 lakers, etc...

so okc's russ, kd, harden isn't a superteam. lakers magic, kaj, worthy isn't a superteam

and bird's boston nor mj's bulls. they were all super great but not "superteams"

[LaLover11]

97 Bulls
Pop/Duncan Spurs
Curry/Durant Warriors
KB24/Shaq Lakers

The only Super Teams in the modern era

Super Teams = Super Stars/ Super Bench/Super Coach

Everything else is just a Great Team

[Iwasawitness]

I've come to the realization that people will twist the narrative for what constitutes a superteam for agenda purposes. When you mention other teams that fit the same criteria, they apparently don't count for "reasons" (in reality it's because that opens up another can of worms that ultimately leads to the argument they're making being refuted).

To me, the definition of super team that makes the most sense is the following: a team has to have at least one top five player in the league, one top ten player, and one top 20 player. This practically guarantees that they will have three players make the all star team, and gives them all an opportunity to make all NBA as well depending on their roles and what they bring to the organization.

The reason I go by this specific criteria is for a variety of reasons. For one thing, almost all of the teams commonly referred to as a super team fit this criteria.

The 08 Celtics had KG as the top five, Pierce as the top ten and Allen as the top 20.
The 2011 Heat had LeBron as top five, Wade as the top ten and Bosh as the top 20.
The 2015 Cavaliers had LeBron as top five, Love as top ten and Irving as top 20.

The tricky thing with this is that all of these rankings are based on how the players were ranked going INTO the season. The thing is, they don't necessarily play out that way. For example, with the 2015 Cavaliers, LeBron remained a top five player, but neither Irving or Love played out as top ten players in the league, and an argument could be made that Love wasn't even top 20 that season. The team proved to be elite, but more so due to the team they managed to build around said big three. But on the other hand, a team like the 2016 Warriors for example did play out that way, with Curry already having been a top five player of course, but Green ascending into top ten territory and Klay having already cemented his spot in top 20, and all three even managed to make all NBA that season.

There's never going to be a perfect and set in stone definition of superteam. It was something that was made up in response to particular events and continues to change to this day.

[bovice]

when 3 or more star players (all-star caliber) come together inorganically. 2010 heat, 2007 boston, 2012 lakers, etc...

so okc's russ, kd, harden isn't a superteam. lakers magic, kaj, worthy isn't a superteam

and bird's boston nor mj's bulls. they were all super great but not "superteams"

yup.

[dennythedino]

I like to define it as when a team is formed with 3 perennial All-Star caliber players at or near their prime.

Teams like Showtime Lakers (Magic, Kareem, Worthy, etc), 80's Celtics (Bird, McHale, Parish, etc), Heatles (LeBron, Wade, Bosh), or the KD Warriors.

The current Phoenix Suns is questionable since Beal is always injured and not really a perennial All-Star player.

Something like the 76ers wouldn't count either...Embiid (prime), Maxey (pre-prime), Lowry (way past prime)

[NZB2323]

I agree the term started with the 08 Celtics and was codified with the 2011 Heat.

Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, and Kevin Garnett had all been the best player on their team their entire career.

LeBron, Wade, and Bosh has all been the best player on their team their entire career. (Maybe not 2005 for Wade)

So that’s my definition.

[ChiTownHero1992]

To me a superteam is a team "constructed" through FA, Trade, etc to have multiple all-stars and superstars play together. Guys that could serve as #1 option on their own team.

Current Suns, current Lakers to an extent, the 2010-14 Heat, the KD/Curry Warriors, the KD/Irving+Harden Nets, etc are all superteams

A team that was drafted organically but ended up with multiple all-stars (OKC w/ RW, Harden, KD, Warriors minus KD, first Bulls 3peat) those are not superteams IMO

[One_and_Done]

It's relative to the league the team plays in so it eludes easy definition.