The 2010-2011 NBA season is nearly upon us and the basketball world has focused its attention on the triumvirate that has assembled in Miami.   The so called “coup” that the Miami Heat organization has produced has caused sleepless nights for fans of other franchises who fear that the NBA has been hijacked and their respective team’s dreams of hoisting the Larry O’Brian Trophy is all in vain for the foreseeable future.  The questions on the minds of concerned fans are many and varied including: Will the offensive talent of Miami simply overpower the defense of other teams?  Is it academic that teaming three of the top ten scorers in the league will guarantee a championship? 

In addition to these questions, there are more universal questions that the Heat has forced fans to confront.  Does loyalty to a team help define a player’s legacy?  Will smaller market franchises become less able to attract the depth of star players needed to compete?  Will the NBA become less competitive?  If the answer to all of these questions in the minds of fans is yes, then there is reason to be afraid of a basketball world whose capitol is now Miami, Florida.  A league in which champions are predetermined and possibly for many years is not a place where fans can find perpetual comfort in the hope for “next year.”

Fortunately for the NBA and its many followers, the answer to previous questions posed is probably “no” or some variation of it.  The fear generated by the Heat’s movements this off season is easily dismissed by significant evidence that suggests the hoopla is all for nothing.  Contrary to popular belief, the realignment of the NBA as a result of the teaming of Lebron James, Dwayne Wade, and Chris Bosh in Miami will probably not lead to the apocalyptic predictions of the fearful.  Like with all things, the NBA will adapt.   Tackling some of the proposed fears of NBA fans head on can provide a glimpse into why this is the case.

Will the offensive talent of the Heat simply overpower the defense of the other teams? Maybe!  However high scoring teams (usually led by Don Nelson) have not had success in the league without defense.  The Miami Heat has been correctly scrutinized and is seen as being weak in that department.  Therefore, even if the Miami Heat are able to score effectively, the inability to stop other teams means those teams will be able to keep pace with the Heats offense thereby nullifying the benefits of their substantial scoring.  

Is it academic that teaming three of the top ten scorers in the league will guarantee a championship?  Absolutely not!  Case in point…in the 2004 Finals, the Detroit Pistons were given little chance to win against the Los Angeles Lakers, who had won three out of the previous four NBA championships, and who fielded a star-studded lineup that included the two top players in the league in Shaquille O'Neal and Kobe Bryant (a claim even the current Heat team cannot make).  The team also included Gary Payton and Karl Malone who while past their prime still contributed much better than average scoring and defense. However, the Pistons dominated the series, defeating Los Angeles in five games for the team's third NBA Championship. The Pistons posted double-digit wins in three of their four victories, and held the Lakers to a franchise-low 68 points in Game 3.  Not only did the Pistons not feature a superstar player but dominated the league based on defense as opposed to offense. 

Does loyalty to a team help define a player’s legacy?  No, but there are limits.  The appeal of some fans to loyalty from player’s especially star players is a masked attempt to control the behavior of people who play the game for the love of it but also for business reasons.  Neither fans nor teams are required to be loyal to players and therefore it seems unreasonable for players to be measured by their loyalty.   It is however appropriate for fans to expect of players that they not use their position while on the team to create other opportunities for themselves elsewhere or to publicly humiliate a franchise as has been done recently.     

Will smaller market franchises become less able to attract star players needed to compete?  No!  While many would argue that concentrating talent would be unfair to a smaller market that is simply a myth.  While teams with multiple stars may have some advantages, they would also develop disadvantages by trading up talent and trading down on balance and depth, the very situation Miami finds itself in.   As exemplified in the case of the 2004 Los Angeles Lakers and Detroit Pistons, top heavy teams in large markets are not better than balanced teams with deep benches filled with second tiered stars and solid role players.  Because of the NBA salary cap, the more teams acquire superstar players, the less likely they can afford the type of role players needed to give the team balance.

Will the NBA become less competitive? Probably not! To take a quote from the end of the movie Batman Begins, Commissioner Gordon talks about the subsequent outcome that occurs from increasing the stakes so to speak. In a very insightful description of these consequences, he accurately describes the inevitable move towards - escalation.   “We use semi-automatic weapons, they get automatics. We wear bulletproof vests, they get armor-piercing rounds. You go around jumping off rooftops and they… well…”  Smaller markets and the players and coaches that make up their teams will adapt.  These teams will be able to compete against larger markets by focusing their game to exploit the aforementioned inherent weaknesses of top heavy teams.  People may point to a team like the New York Yankees as an example of the contrary, however that kind of dominance would not happen in the NBA with its current salary cap restrictions.  With Miami, for example, shelling out over $100 million each for three players, it effectively ended their ability to sign another star player.   One of the great ironies of the NBA is the over emphasis on individual players for a team sport. Smaller markets have the opportunity to showcase well balanced and deep teams such as the ones that are on the rise in Oklahoma City and Portland.  It will help bring value to the concept of team effort just as the Detroit Pistons did in 2004 and a fact the greatest individual player Michael Jordan was forced to ultimately accept.  In order to be successful, Michael Jordan adapted his game from being an absurdly disproportionate part of his team’s offense, to recognizing the significance of fielding talented role player which became the difference for the many championships he ultimately won.  Jordan found his greatest success as part of a balanced and deep team not one filled with multiple superstars.