- The evolution of 'Superteams' in the NBA has been fascinating to watch. While some argue that their decline is beneficial for the sport, I believe it's more nuanced. The unpredictability of champions since 2019 has indeed added excitement, but the concept of 'Superteams' isn't entirely dead. - Regarding the 2024 Boston Celtics, it's perplexing to see them dismissed as a 'Superteam.' By Rusty's own criteria, they fit the bill perfectly. Jayson Tatum is undeniably a 'Superstar,' and with Jaylen Brown, Jrue Holiday, and Kristaps Porziņģis as 'All-Stars,' the team is stacked. The depth provided by players like Derrick White and Al Horford further solidifies their status. Comparing them to the 1960s Celtics, who often had three 'All-Stars' including Bill Russell, makes it clear that today's Celtics are similarly formidable. While Bill Russell and Jayson Tatum are different players, both are 'Superstars' in their own right. - Rusty's narrative that the era of 'Superteams' is ending seems more like a convenient storyline than reality. The era of the 'Big 3s' might be fading, but 'Superteams' are evolving. Teams like the 2024 Celtics show that having multiple stars and a deep bench is still a viable strategy. The landscape of the NBA is shifting, but the allure of assembling a powerhouse team remains strong.
Rusty Buckets and co., I like the work. It’s fun and informative. Do you have one about the ABA? You mentioned they had a different product in the Scoring gone too far video. But I don’t know shit about the ABA. What rules or general governing allowed them to make such a different product? I’d watch the hell out of that.
@@fortynights1513cause he went and made the nba a formality for 3 years ( injuries killed the 3rd year obviously) then keeps playing GM and blowing shit up and taking no responsibility
@BzBuck "Absolutely agree with @BzBuck. The distinction between Superteams and dynasties is crucial. Superteams are often built through strategic acquisitions and trades, aiming for immediate success by assembling top-tier talent. However, this approach doesn't always guarantee long-term dominance or cohesion. Dynasties, on the other hand, are typically forged through a combination of homegrown talent, consistent team culture, and sustained excellence over multiple seasons. Take the Golden State Warriors, for example. Their dynasty was built on the foundation of drafting and developing players like Steph Curry, Klay Thompson, and Draymond Green, complemented by smart acquisitions. In contrast, the Miami Heat's Superteam era with LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, and Chris Bosh was more about instant impact, which, while successful, didn't have the same longevity. In essence, the rise and fall of Superteams often highlight the challenges of maintaining chemistry and adapting to evolving competition, whereas dynasties reflect a deeper, more resilient organizational strength. Both have their place in NBA history, but their paths to success and their legacies are markedly different." - @Copilot, 8 hours ago
Exactly. For example, 2014-2016 Warriors were NOT a superteam. It was just a narrative from Lebron's media and his fans to portray them like one to make him look better in GOAT conversations.
The Golden State superteam was great because they basically didn't have to give up anything for Durant, and the fit with the other players where pretty good. They also didn't blow up after the end where they somehow won another championship.
@@deonlepharaohnah all they gave up in 2017 was Harrison Barnes so they pretty much upgraded. By 2019 everyone was making bank tho so that’s when it collapsed
For fan? Yes, it is fun. But for casuals and espescially general audience/new fans that try to get into this (and by extension, the promotional campaign of the sport) THIS IS NIGHTMARE!! Like it or not, you need greatness & domination to pull people. To make the mass to see you you need that 'single star' that shine brightly alone outshine everyone. If everyone is a star and they are everywhere...then theres no star. Thats what happen to MotoGP, for decades nibody watch it, even in SE Asia where motorcycle sales is the hugest, they dont care. But once Valentino Rossi dominates, everyone start to look at him, amazed by his greatness, and watch the unwatchable sport just to see him win and win seeing his celebration antics race after race. Even wben they dont know anythjng about the rules, the technique, the technology...they always know V.Rossi is the GOAT. Once they watch it enough times, they will grow fanaticism, and actually want to know more, and watch more and maybe build the love for the sport. But if everyone is a star, and it almost everywhere, they wont know where to look, and by extension...they wont look and keep watching soccer as no.1 most popular sport, no matter how boring it is compared to basketball.
Great for basketball fans. Unfortunately winning multiple championships and MVPs as well are only gonna get harder. People talking about Wemby winning 6+ championships and stuff, but that's not happening. Basketball players who aim to be a Top 10-15 player all time will find it really hard to get the acknowledgement from people, cause getting the needed accolades for those convos won't be there.
People are cheering this on but historical data shows that super teams are great for sports. Remember the casual fan is what drives the league not the hardcore ones.
Yeah, it's nice to have somebody to root for but it's nicer to have somebody to root against. Old.pro wrestling logic, hate or love is find, indifference is what kills ya. Last thing you want is a finals like this year where nobody gives a shit and there's no historical significance
@@mickbreeden6516 exactly. You need an evil empire to tune in and hope for their downfall. The Yankees, the patriots, warriors, lakers etc. You need that villian that brings the true emotions out
hard disagree with 24 celtics not being a superteam. even by your definitions, it is. jt is the superstar, and u have 3 all stars in jb, jrue and porzinigs along with a deep bench (derrick white, al horford). it's literally the 1960s celtics which u said had "3 all stars more often than not one of which was bill." ofc bill is not equal to jt, but they're both superstars by your definition. But Celtics have 4 stars on the court more often than not (and honestly 4.5 given how dwhite is called a fringe all star). so I don't get your logic at all in disregarding the 24 celtics. only reason I think u did it was to fit your narrative that the era of superteams is dying. for the record I think the era of big 3s are dying, not superteams.
I was just thinking bout this bro lost me when he said jb don’t count he is at least borderline superstar the Celtics literally had 3 people at the Olympics n they should have had 4 video should have been death of big 3s
@@MrPek-fe9fpTalent wise the 2014 Spurs are not even close to the 2024 Celtics. They were as good as they were because of coaching and style of play. The Celtics have players any team would want because they're literally just very good
@@MrPek-fe9fp if ur gonna consider manu an all star, then al horford is an all star too. and atp you got 5.5 stars on this Celtics, and if u include all def players too then it's 6 valuable players so no C's and spurs were not the same. and FYI spurs that year had only 1 all star (tony parker) and 0 all NBA 0 all def
Cleveland was definitely a superteam in the 2010’s. Kyrie was a emerging young star guard who made the all star team twice before lebron got there and Kevin love was a 26 and 14 player before being traded to Cleveland, that was definitely a superteam and you’re disrespecting kyrie and love for saying it wasn’t.
The showtime lakers were by far a superteam. They won 47 games and made it to the second round of the playoffs then were able to draft Magic Johnson number 1. Kareem literally wins mvp Magic’s rookie year and then Magic wins the fmvp. They won 2 chips in 3 seasons and then drafted James worthy number one after WINNING 57 GAMES. In addition to those 3 they had Michael cooper, norm Nixon who was the lakers’ point guard for Magic’s first four seasons, Jamaal Wilkes, Rambis, etc. this team was insane throughout the 80s winning 50% of the decade’s championships.
Now that you mention it, the Showtime Lakers were definitely a superteam. Because how often do you get the number one pick AFTER winning a championship? On top of having it happen TWICE after making the playoffs in a 5-year span?
Michael Cooper was a DPOY to go with an all time great offense , Bird said he was the best defender he's ever played against , They were stacked ! Worthy was FMVP in 88 while Byron Scott lead the team in scoring to go along with Magic and Kareem ! Showtime was as "Super" as you can get
@@alarrim29574 No it was 1 of the 2 worst teams in the league would get the number 1 pick based on a coin flip. The Lakers just got their number 1 picks from trades they made years prior. They were just lucky the teams they traded with were so bad while they had already started winning championships lol
12 minutes in and I’m yelling at my phone. Rusty, The Bulls were not a super team. Having a “borderline” superstar, or even 2 superstars makes you a “competitive” team, not a super team. A super team is ALWAYS formed through collusion with the goal of weakening in-conference franchises, like poaching.
I feel a team can’t be a super team in hindsight, because creating one needs to be on purpose. Like I don’t consider the pre-Durant warriors a super team because they weren’t assembled to be one, it just worked out that way. Whereas the KG/Pierce Nets are a super team because, even though they weren’t great, they were assembled to be a bunch of stars on a team. A super team is more about what’s intended than what actually happens
In my mind it was also closer to what you described, but I guess everyone has their own definition. I'd say the KD Warriors don't exactly fit this definition either though, as they were the same team and just added KD which is different than completely reinventing your roster around multiple new star players
@@Hikayuhuy which is funny because I actually think it’s becoming a pro-Bron argument. At this point being on a super team statistically doesn’t correlate with winning chips any more than good chemistry does. And watching Bron lose in 2011 and then just decide he’s just going to run the super team, it speaks more to his elevated status even on a super team than it does his need for them.
@@wakkawakkagaming3710 there is no way to measurably compare the likelihood winning with “good chemistry” as it is an entirely arbitrary and result based qualification, than that of super teams. What is absolutely common sense is super team raise the likelihood of championship for the respective stars. Just because other try to copy your homework shittily and gotten an F, it doesn’t raise your own grade. As matter of fact, if you add in the definition of a super team as team formed to ring chase, the Nets might not even qualify. 1 of their superstar couldn’t give a rat’s ass about doing anything more than the minimum to win and the other was more interested in opening his third eye than championship. The only one remotely interested in a ring was Harden and he arrived in the worst shape of his career so how serious was his commitment anyway. Another conclusion people should make is that super team can only work when the ring chasers, like Bron and KG, actually care to ring chase and not just pay lip service.
Exactly, LeBron has had 3 superteans throughout his career. 1st one with the Heat, 2nd on with the Cavs, and the 2022 Lakers as well. A superteam is a certain archetype of team, not just a good team. A superteam is a team with at least 2 superstars and a third star. The 90s Bulls were never a super team. They were a solid team with good role players. If the first 3-peat Bulls were a superteam, then so were the 2020 Lakers.
I love how people don't acknowledge the fact that last years celtics were a super team. Jayson Tatum, Porzingus, brown, Holiday, dude derrick white could probably even be an allstar
JB is not a superstar but I think he is borderline. He's probably top 15 - besides, Celtics have a bonafide superstar and THREE other all-star caliber players alongside him and they even have a solid bench. Their fit together is incredible too - genuinely, how are they not a superteam? I know it's 2K but in 2K24, they had FIVE PLAYERS 87+ overall or higher. That has to count for something edit: He addressed it at the end but doesn't the 2024 Celtics fall under the just 'insanely stacked' Bill Russell Celtics umbrella? Obviously, it isn't as extreme of an example but they're still crazy stacked
I just don't get it are they a super team or a team that won the finals because everyone is injured? A super team will not have any doubts with their championship but no people have picked the Dallas to win the finals because the Celtics are "chokers" or "not battle tested". Now they won what people are saying is that everyone is just injured. So which is which make up your minds
@@PositEeveetya super team will have a ton of doubts about winning a chip. Look at the warriors cavs series and people will say they lose if k love and kyrie aren’t hurt. People even ask what would’ve happened if JR shot the ball. The heatles were some of the most controversial champions I’ve seen in my time watching (like 2006 and on) people even say the Boston big 3 weren’t a super team because they only won once
To me, yes and it's not even a debate. Two at minimum superstars or very close to it with JB, DPOY Marcus Smart, and another all star caliber and all defense player in Jrue AND KP on top of outstanding depth. Not even a question
I'm now just learning that Dwight Howard was left off of the 75th Anniversary team. HOW?!?! Dude was arguably the second best player in the entire league for about five seasons. Nothing he did, or failed to do, after that can erase that stretch of dominance.
a lot of yall aren't getting the point of the NBA. Teams' number 1 priority is NOT to build a smart championship roster, it is to MAKE MONEY. As long as an NBA team is making money, they don't really care if they're winning or losing or have bad rosters. You say the nets made a huge mistake getting Paul Pierce and KG, but as you said they moved to Brooklyn recently with a new stadium, and they needed money. They knew that move wasn't gonna win them a championship, but they still traded but NOT to win one. They made it to get money, which they absolutely got from fans. Just take a look at how much profits they made during that stretch when they needed to show investors that they were making money (cuz of the move to bkl and new stadium etc). In our eyes, the nets move was trash but in the eyes of an NBA owner, it was a W move. In the end Celtics made money, Nets made money, players made money, RUclipsrs and analysts like Rusty made money, and we (bottom of the pyramid) gave them our time and money. LOL
Great point Sammy. A much often misunderstood part of getting the big names is not just how they perform on the basketball court, but if they get people in seats, jersey sales or even just some amount of expectation and media buzz around the team. Steve Balmer, from the Clippers, understands this like no other. Kawhi might never have another healthy season in his life, but we all know the man is still a force of nature when he is actually at full strength.
But, wouldn't it be better if you had a long-term championship competitive product would make your money and be a better investment to build better trust in the fans for more money. A better product = better investment.
@@M_11_m41n Yes, exactly. But it isn't easy to get a championship competitive roster together and even harder to keep it together long term. Also the financial limitations for salary caps and the CBA are at play here, otherwise it would just be a matter of investing more capital than opposing teams.
Aight I’m gonna throw a rebuttal in here though I think there’s a kernel of truth in your statement. Being VOTED the most valuable player in a 7 game series does not definitively correlate to you being the best player in a 101 game season that resulted in a chip. Though there is an argument (not 100% but there is one) that JB vs JT is a 1a/1b situation.
These are always some of the best NBA videos on RUclips! I only wish the NFL and MLB had similar levels of quality deep dives. Hats off to you and the entire RustyBuckets team, keep up the amazing work!
I think the reason why the NFL doesn't have deep dives similar to this is because there's so many more players on the team compared to the NBA. Also, I think coaching matters more in the NFL than the NBA to a certain extent. That's why you only see career retrospectives on individual players(Dan Marino, Peyton Manning, Randy Moss), a team for a particular year (2000 Ravens, 2015 Broncos or Panthers, 2007 and 2011 Giants, etc), or even more rare than the previous 2, dynasties or potential dynasties (Patriots 2000-2019, 80s 49ers, 90s Cowboys, Legion of Boom Seahawks, Greatest Show on Turf Rams, etc)
It will be interesting to see how the second apron changes the trajectory of the league outside of pretty much destroying superteams. Also to see how NBA fans react to the new landscape.
I was discussing this with my bro. The second apron will exist as Adam Silver's single most important decision of his reign as the commissioner, and his legacy will be remembered either fondly or negatively as a result of it.
@@jaydag24 Nobody gets a superteam, whether you trade for it or build through the draft and people are already complaining about organically built teams being affected. VERY interesting lol
@@fortynights1513 Its essentially a hard cap that affects team building. Look at the Suns, three players on max deals and half the roster is minimum contracts.
Basically, the second apron means favors franchise player smart enough like Duncan and Nowitzky before who made a cut in their contract, which will give their team a massive boost for the title unlike all the players who claim they want the title but take their max contract and weakened their own team (if you make a party but keep all the cake for yourself, don't blame others if they don't come).
I think one of the other symptoms of a failing super team that you didn’t mention is the “good stats, bad team” conundrum. Good stats on a bad team almost never translate to good stats on a winning team. Big stats on loosing teams when the ball is in your hands a lot is typically a big indicator of empty calorie stats, and when you go to a contender, either those empty calorie stats go away and a 25-30 ppg guy becomes a 15-20 ppg guy, or that play style is forced and the team is worse for it. So if your contending team trades for a guy that’s putting up 25-30ppg on a loosing team, expect that guy to be far more underwhelming on your team, like Bradley Beal to the suns, Kevin love to the cavs, melo to the thunder, etc. etc.
@@rustybuckets the definition feels more like it’s trying to stick to the motif of big 3s more than superteam, the celtics are definitely a superteam. the worst player in their starting 5 just won an olympic gold medal, JT is all nba and got mvp votes, JB an all star + finals mvp and clearly showed he is capable of being the best player on the team on any given night, KP a borderline all star talent and jrue is the best defensive guard in the league + 2nd team all defense. if that’s not a superteam just because it’s not a meeting your big 3 criteria then you should probably change the title of the video to the fall of the big 3 era
@@bakedizzle24 Now you're just nitpicking. he already addressed it at the end of the video. the classic superteam is the big 3 but the celtics (an in my view the championship year nuggets) are what the new version will look like.
Your logic and criteria is all over the place. The 2016 Cavs were most definitely a super team. Kyrie when healthy in the playoffs out preformed a lot of number 1 options as a number 2. Including 2017 as well. K love was still a rebounding machine who had be come a knock down spot up shooter and still allstar caliber. Jr smith wasn’t too far removed form his 6th man of the year selection and Tristan Thompson was no scrub either. Kyle korver and Richard Jefferson off the bench. And the heat were a super team for all 4 years. 3 at the worst. I see through all the glazing bro.
I think I agree that the 2016 Cavs are a super team. Especially I have issues with not giving Kyrie credit for being probably one of the most dangerous and consistant scoring options in the league. Even still to this day in Dallas, he is probably one of the best offensive options to have on a team and in Cleveland he was even more explosive than he is today. Sure, it is nice to have guys that are larger, can defend better and shoot catch and shoot 3's at a reasonable percentage, but having a legit top level shooter that is also extremely dynamic on-ball and a very good playmaker is just a truly rare combination. Outside of Curry, there is no other player in the league that can shoot as well, has the same amount of ball handling and the same amount of gravity as a playmaker.
Kyrie Irving was never as good as #1 options. A big reason why he could perform so well is because he played with LeBron. On his own, he couldn't lead a team anywhere. His counting stats didn't negate the fact that the advanced stats, and the teams success, absolutely did not see him as a superstar. He just didn't have the impact. If K Love was also an elite defender your argument would be stronger. JR was still a solid player, but he was 5 seasons removed from his 6MOY form. He was clearly worse and he was a starter, not coming off the bench. RJ was fine but c'mon. You're hyping up 5ppg on like 15-20 minutes a game. Korver wasn't on the championship winning Cavs.
A super team is not organically created. You miss that aspect. Players are colluding to draw in all star talent to their teams in a way where the front offices aren’t really negotiating for anyone. The Heat, GSW, Nets, 2016 Cavs, and Clippers were all inorganic super teams brought together through player collusion. Big 3 Boston, OKC, and current Boston are just smart front office moves to get talented players to work under an even better coach.
From SUPER-teams to super-TEAMS. Wembanyama will be the star of the future not just because he is an alien but also because of his approach to training mobility. Teams organisational capacities, training staffs - psychologists - nutrutionists etc. will be a difference maker in the future, for both attracting talent but also winning
Is Jason Tatum really a superstar player, or so much better than JB, or even KP, Jrue or White? Seriously all of these players are top quality NBA players and I don't believe Tatum is so much better than the rest just because he has the name recognition and takes more shots. Sure, he is an amazing two-way talent (which is still somewhat uncommon in the league) but he isn't that much better than the rest of his team and some argue he isn't at all better than JB for example. I can certainly see he was mainly in MVP talks because he was 'seen' as the best player on the top team in the league, but in terms of efficiency and raw impact, he is leagues behind the Jokic, Luka, Embiid, Giannis, Shai, Curry or even an unassuming guy like Haliburton. (who pre-injury broke quite a few impact metrics last season) Now I'm not trying to bash on Tatum, or discredit the Boston Celtics nor their performance. They won a fair championship and had a very well oiled machine powered by a smart, versatile squad of veteran players and a few key roleplayers of the bench. I'm just trying to bring my arguments against their 'superteam' status, as they seem to be all a tiny bit lower on the rung of pure talent, while their average talent level still is very high. (all top 50, even Al Horford)
For some reason my original comment got deleted. I made a supernice comment about the very high quality of the video. To repeat myself again but hopefully it stays up this time: The narration, editing and even the entire flow and feel of the video was very well done. There was a logical progression and structure to the video's timeline that never felt off. Thanks to Jacob and Rudy for making such a fun and interesting deep dive.
A lot of people think JB is the most talented player, or the most reliable one. He certainly takes a few less shots and has worse name recognition. Personally I think they are about equal, with slightly different qualities.
@@pinobluevogel6458as a Celtics fan who loves both, they’re not equal and it becomes obvious when you watch the games, especially now when the 24/25 season has started. JT always requires a lot more defensive attention than JB does - him drawing the double is one of the cornerstones of the Celtics offense and the offense flows really well whenever JT runs it while it looks more stagnant when JB runs the second unit because he tends to go into the paint and not dish it out, instead only looking for lobs which is why he works so well with KP. They’re closer to the same level on defense, though they’re good at different things. JB is a monster on the perimiter and his ability to lock onto ball handlers is incredible, while JT’s ability to guard 1-5 is what really helped neutralise the Mavericks in the finals. They’re an amazing duo, but there’s a reason why Tatum has been in fringe MVP conversations the past few seasons while JB only has one All NBA second team.
@@clarasundqvist6013 Let's get one thing straight: I'm not a fan of both players or the team, but I do think you make some excellent points. I have seen Tatum play a lot better this season so far. The reason I thought JT wasn't much better than JB before was his efficiency, his reliability in the clutch and his playoff efficiency as a whole. Last year he was good, but not MVP worthy and JT really fell off in the playoffs, shooting a measly 27% from three, at quite a few attempts that is a lot of bricking and not great for the team's success. All of this happened while JB was slightly better than his regular season performance, being just a little bit more reliable by forcing to go to the rim with his speed. Coming away from that season, I think this is the main reason I believe they were basically similar in effectiveness or player value. A lot of what makes a player have bigger box score numbers is just opportunity and because Tatum is just a little higher in the pecking order, he simply takes more shots and has slightly higher numbers, while the efficiency is more or less the same. Finally, I really think their gameplan and execution of that plan was what did the Mavericks in. The Mavs didn't have a great matchup, some players (at least Luka) had some niggling injuries that slowed them and Kyrie definitely underperformed, which is part his own fault and partly due to having Jrue and JB on him for most of the game. They really defended him well. It sucks to have your most reliable player not be great, he's normally even more reliable than Luka in nearly all cases. Although I have to say there was 1 Mavs win in that finals that was a complete blowout the other way, which gives some hint that it might not be as easy for the Celtics then next time. Thanks for going into the player comparison some more. I do believe they are 2 of the most flexible and effective starplayers in the league, being able to do a little bit of everything quite well is extremely valueable. The additions of KP and Jrue just put this team over the top and I hope there will be more teams than the Pacers that will give them some more opposition.
@@pinobluevogel6458 We're ridiculously spoiled with this team tbh. JT has been on fire to start the season, he's been allowed to play for longer stretches to start the game which I think suits him, last season he'd sit around half and get going more after halftime. If he can keep this up and Boston keeps dominating, I think he'll have a more realistic shot at MVP than previously - but I have my doubts since his usage will likely go down with KP returning. I won't go into my opinions on the MVP race in general, but I agree that with how the award is determined now, he wasn't a fit last season. I totally get *why* someone would rate them as equals - they've been a package deal their entire careers so it's natural. But if we look at how they fare when the other is out since 2021 (when they became the undisputed first options, post-Kyrie/Kemba/Hayward), JB is 11-6 (54% loss) without JT while JT is 30-10 (33% loss) without JB. It isn't a perfect comparison since the sample sizes are different and other factors are at play, but I think it still speaks to that JB struggles more without JT than the other way around. I think this speaks to the biggest difference between them - especially last season and this one, JT's playmaking skills have taken an extra leap while JB's haven't, so he struggles more as a first option than JT does. JB had a great playoff run and deserved the FMVP just for locking up Luka as well as he did, but without Tatum defending the 5 the Mavs still get their lobs, which we saw in game 4. While his efficiency fell off, JT still led the team in points (42% FG which isn't great but only 2% worse than Luka - the 3 was bad), rebounds and assists and showing up when needed - JB got the clutch shot in game 3 of the Pacers series, while JT is the reason they won in overtime. Is it a worse performance than he should've given? Absolutely, but it wasn't a chokejob JB had to save him from. I think we're underestimating how valuable guys like the Jays actually are. Two way guys who are more or less always available (especially JT, currently side-eyeing JB's hip flexor) and who are, as you said, good/great at pretty much everything. The current state in OKC worries me a little, but for now our biggest competition really seem to be the Pacers simply because they play so god damn fast lmao
Seems like your new direction with the channel is working out really well. I like the long format stuff a lot, myself. Hope you're doing good, Rusty Buckets !
awesome video! love to see the evolution of your channel as you were the first person i watched for nba talk when i first got into the sport. love the team you have with you and the shootaround boys and cant wait to see what you all come up with next!
I'm amazed there's no mention of KD testing the Super team waters with the prototype superteam Thunder before jumping to a full super team with the Warriors. He got a taste, liked it but it wasn't enough, moved to the best team ever, thought he could do better himself and failed to recreate magic ever since.
I wasn't recommended or notified this vid, I just thought "I haven't seen a Rusty Buckets vid in a while"; made my way here and was pleasantly surprised lol
I think the skill gap between superstars and role players has shrunk significantly over the last few years and you don’t necessarily need multiple stars to win anymore
I have a hard time seeing the difference between the shaq and koby lakers and Jordans Bulls. Both were two superstars and a bunch of good role players.
i always thought that a superstar is an elite allstar player/generational talent but is also well known by non-basketball people (e.g Lebron, Curry, and KD). everybody else is just a regular star
Good video but you really gotta leave some of your personal biases and dislikes out of these deep dive videos man. Videos like this are so much better when the person doing them is neutral and just focusing on the facts.
Honestly hope the era of superteams can make a comeback. Despite what hardcore fans say, nothing is more exciting in the NBA than a seemingly unstoppable dynasty.
Bulls werent Superteam, just great team. Because if you are going to include Superstar, borderline Superstar and great role players as "Superteam", what are you calling Lakers with Bron and AD? "Death of Big 3" is better name of video. Also, I am sorry, but gaslighting how "It was Wade team so they lost 2011 Finals" doesnt work at all. Everybody knows why they lost that Finals. And it wasnt because of Wade.
There were big 3s before Boston. The NJ nets with Vince, Kidd, and Jefferson was considered a big 3 at the time, mind you when they acquired Vince the nets went to the finals in back to back years and Richard Jefferson was an all star
Those nets weren't considered a big 3 or superteam at all . A team is considered a superteam if they have 3 players on the roster that were their previous teams 1st option at the time they were traded. Also Vince Carter wasn't on the nets teams that reached the NBA finals.
The whole point behind the 2024 celtics not being a superteam doesn’t really matter. Jaylen Brown not being a superstar is irrelevant, because he gets payed as if he is. They have 2 players on a supermax and 2 other players on other types of max contracts, plus other guys making a bunch of money. So their players are getting payed as if it was a superteam. So a superteam is very possible to build in the current era if you have bird rights to these players
Technically this does not follow the same definition of superteam that is outlined in the video. They are a 'stacked' team, with very good NBA talent as the first 5 players, a borderline top 50 player and 2 very solid shooting roleplayers from the bench. And don't forget the Kornfather himself, his shotblocking from range truly revolutionized the sport.
They basically barely make it. They have five legit .5 superstars on the team, which combines to a total of 2.5 superstars, rounding up to a full three.
Videos like this are great, because they remind me of just how amazing MJ, Olajuwon, and Jokic are. In terms of what they were able to do with the cast they had. You could throw Dirk and Duncan in there, as well
Video was perfect until the bias and hate started to show through. Keep it professional buddy, a lot of your audience doesn’t share your specific bias.
I appreciate that last bit about the Celtics - and it actually might've evolved. A team of superstar role players might now be that new definition. Upcoming season's Thunder seems really close to that definition.
I might also add that many people also differentiate superteams from a team full of drafted stars. Warriors before KD, Spurs through entire Duncan era, and even the first 3-peat Bulls all developed their stars from day one.
1st three peat bulls were definitely not a super team. Scottie was great for his era but never capable of being the best player on a championship team.
That’s a stretch , when he lead they almost got to the Eastern Conference Finals .. we never got the chance to see him get a team built around him but we did see 40 point playoff games & games had he not produced & produced big they would’ve went home.
& if you think Reggie Miller who was a first option was better you’re crazy… Pippen during the championship runs averages almost as much as most teams first options
Nah, they’re not the best ever. You’re just too young to understand. The Warriors have NO ANSWER for the 85 or 87 Lakers. 85 Lakers had a 38 YEAR OLD WHO WON FINALS MVP-AGAINST THE VERY BEST FRONT-COURT IN NBA HISTORY IN 1987, they beat BOS again. 87 Lakers would’ve absolutely blitzed those Warriors. Unlike GSW, the 87 Lakers 6th man was DPOY and was the best defender Larry Bird ever saw. 2001 Lakers were far bigger and shot just as well as GSW-just not as often. You underestimate every great team of the past just bc. While I agree that 1991-1993 was probably better, your video only included them bc of Jordan. Name the player guarding Shaq or Kobe? 😂😂😂😂
My personal history with superteams: I had to burn a Dwade jersey, poster & shoes when LBJ went to Miami. I hate Paul Pierce & the 08 Celtics so much I could never root or be happy for Jayson Tatum. KD going to Warriors, caused me to do something I never thought possible...... Rooting for Lebron in the finals.
I find it interesting how most NBA fans hate super teams and the teams/players who form them, while in soccer super teams are the norm which all other teams strive for and fans applaud.
wow what a great video i hope all of the comments aren't people who are debating a claim about the celtics made within the first 10 minutes of this 1 hour video
Cant wait for LeFraud to retire and so long all the nasty practices. Media and ref bribing, load management for stat padding against weak teams, etc etc etc
![The Most Unlikely Championship Run In NBA History [Documentary]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RYSar9DTZIk/mqdefault.jpg)
![The Most Unlikely Championship Run In NBA History [Documentary]](/img/tr.png)
![The Wilt Paradox: When Numbers Lie [Deep Dive]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_JncJPoh96A/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks Fabletics for sponsoring this video! Tap in to get 70% off sitewide when singing up as a VIP: www.Fabletics.com/Rusty #fableticsambassador
- The evolution of 'Superteams' in the NBA has been fascinating to watch. While some argue that their decline is beneficial for the sport, I believe it's more nuanced. The unpredictability of champions since 2019 has indeed added excitement, but the concept of 'Superteams' isn't entirely dead.
- Regarding the 2024 Boston Celtics, it's perplexing to see them dismissed as a 'Superteam.' By Rusty's own criteria, they fit the bill perfectly. Jayson Tatum is undeniably a 'Superstar,' and with Jaylen Brown, Jrue Holiday, and Kristaps Porziņģis as 'All-Stars,' the team is stacked. The depth provided by players like Derrick White and Al Horford further solidifies their status. Comparing them to the 1960s Celtics, who often had three 'All-Stars' including Bill Russell, makes it clear that today's Celtics are similarly formidable. While Bill Russell and Jayson Tatum are different players, both are 'Superstars' in their own right.
- Rusty's narrative that the era of 'Superteams' is ending seems more like a convenient storyline than reality. The era of the 'Big 3s' might be fading, but 'Superteams' are evolving. Teams like the 2024 Celtics show that having multiple stars and a deep bench is still a viable strategy. The landscape of the NBA is shifting, but the allure of assembling a powerhouse team remains strong.
Rusty Buckets and co., I like the work. It’s fun and informative. Do you have one about the ABA? You mentioned they had a different product in the Scoring gone too far video. But I don’t know shit about the ABA. What rules or general governing allowed them to make such a different product? I’d watch the hell out of that.
"All roads lead to Rusty making a video shitting on Kevin Durant"
KD is a darn good player that some people find the career of narratively unsatisfying.
And the current Boston Celtics, his two least favorite things in the world
@fortynights1513 I mean he just keeps jumping to teams where he has two other stars. It worked once but recently it hasn't been.
@@ashtonjack yeah, cuz in golden state he had 3 stars. Kd cant win with only 2 stars around him...
@@fortynights1513cause he went and made the nba a formality for 3 years ( injuries killed the 3rd year obviously) then keeps playing GM and blowing shit up and taking no responsibility
Not all superteams are dynasties
Not all dynasties are superteams
@BzBuck
"Absolutely agree with @BzBuck. The distinction between Superteams and dynasties is crucial. Superteams are often built through strategic acquisitions and trades, aiming for immediate success by assembling top-tier talent. However, this approach doesn't always guarantee long-term dominance or cohesion. Dynasties, on the other hand, are typically forged through a combination of homegrown talent, consistent team culture, and sustained excellence over multiple seasons.
Take the Golden State Warriors, for example. Their dynasty was built on the foundation of drafting and developing players like Steph Curry, Klay Thompson, and Draymond Green, complemented by smart acquisitions. In contrast, the Miami Heat's Superteam era with LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, and Chris Bosh was more about instant impact, which, while successful, didn't have the same longevity.
In essence, the rise and fall of Superteams often highlight the challenges of maintaining chemistry and adapting to evolving competition, whereas dynasties reflect a deeper, more resilient organizational strength. Both have their place in NBA history, but their paths to success and their legacies are markedly different." - @Copilot, 8 hours ago
@@PJCG06very well said
Exactly. For example, 2014-2016 Warriors were NOT a superteam. It was just a narrative from Lebron's media and his fans to portray them like one to make him look better in GOAT conversations.
Well sajd
@@nikosofidemporasthe warriors with kd were definitely a superteam
A rusty main channel upload? Oh we feasting fr
The Golden State superteam was great because they basically didn't have to give up anything for Durant, and the fit with the other players where pretty good. They also didn't blow up after the end where they somehow won another championship.
The 2022 version likely had more depth then.
They gave up depth which is why when they got hurt, it fell apart for a little bit
@@fortynights1513 Barring injuries though the KD warriors is the best team of all time, it just wasn't fair.
@@deonlepharaohnah all they gave up in 2017 was Harrison Barnes so they pretty much upgraded. By 2019 everyone was making bank tho so that’s when it collapsed
@@RandomGuy-yt6oj you're right but bogut was probably the biggest loss...most for his defense
The fall of superteams is one of the best things to happen to the sport..a different champion every year since 2019 is fun af
we're sending out the navy to find WHO THE FUCK ASKED!
@@isojoe125 Just had this talk with LeBron..he personally asked for my opinion
@@isojoe125 KD was just hitting me up asking about what dispater101 thought about this topic
For fan? Yes, it is fun. But for casuals and espescially general audience/new fans that try to get into this (and by extension, the promotional campaign of the sport) THIS IS NIGHTMARE!!
Like it or not, you need greatness & domination to pull people. To make the mass to see you you need that 'single star' that shine brightly alone outshine everyone. If everyone is a star and they are everywhere...then theres no star. Thats what happen to MotoGP, for decades nibody watch it, even in SE Asia where motorcycle sales is the hugest, they dont care. But once Valentino Rossi dominates, everyone start to look at him, amazed by his greatness, and watch the unwatchable sport just to see him win and win seeing his celebration antics race after race. Even wben they dont know anythjng about the rules, the technique, the technology...they always know V.Rossi is the GOAT. Once they watch it enough times, they will grow fanaticism, and actually want to know more, and watch more and maybe build the love for the sport.
But if everyone is a star, and it almost everywhere, they wont know where to look, and by extension...they wont look and keep watching soccer as no.1 most popular sport, no matter how boring it is compared to basketball.
Great for basketball fans. Unfortunately winning multiple championships and MVPs as well are only gonna get harder. People talking about Wemby winning 6+ championships and stuff, but that's not happening. Basketball players who aim to be a Top 10-15 player all time will find it really hard to get the acknowledgement from people, cause getting the needed accolades for those convos won't be there.
"OK don't laugh at this" proceeds to say one of the funniest sentences of all time 😂
when bro said the lakers signed edp i had to like it😂😂😭
Nickname suggestion for Rusty to use for Malone and Stockton:
The P3dophile and the pickpocket.
Yeah. He wild.
time stamp?
People are cheering this on but historical data shows that super teams are great for sports. Remember the casual fan is what drives the league not the hardcore ones.
Unfortunately
Yeah, it's nice to have somebody to root for but it's nicer to have somebody to root against. Old.pro wrestling logic, hate or love is find, indifference is what kills ya. Last thing you want is a finals like this year where nobody gives a shit and there's no historical significance
Yeah I'm not a stock holder though so unless the super team is my team I don't care.
@@mickbreeden6516 exactly. You need an evil empire to tune in and hope for their downfall. The Yankees, the patriots, warriors, lakers etc. You need that villian that brings the true emotions out
@@pimpnamedslickback7780More recently the Chiefs are becoming that in the NFL.
hard disagree with 24 celtics not being a superteam. even by your definitions, it is. jt is the superstar, and u have 3 all stars in jb, jrue and porzinigs along with a deep bench (derrick white, al horford). it's literally the 1960s celtics which u said had "3 all stars more often than not one of which was bill." ofc bill is not equal to jt, but they're both superstars by your definition. But Celtics have 4 stars on the court more often than not (and honestly 4.5 given how dwhite is called a fringe all star). so I don't get your logic at all in disregarding the 24 celtics. only reason I think u did it was to fit your narrative that the era of superteams is dying. for the record I think the era of big 3s are dying, not superteams.
I was just thinking bout this bro lost me when he said jb don’t count he is at least borderline superstar the Celtics literally had 3 people at the Olympics n they should have had 4 video should have been death of big 3s
Its just well constructed team, like 2014 spurs. Not a superteam, just a superb TEAM
@@MrPek-fe9fpTalent wise the 2014 Spurs are not even close to the 2024 Celtics. They were as good as they were because of coaching and style of play. The Celtics have players any team would want because they're literally just very good
@@MrPek-fe9fp if ur gonna consider manu an all star, then al horford is an all star too. and atp you got 5.5 stars on this Celtics, and if u include all def players too then it's 6 valuable players so no C's and spurs were not the same. and FYI spurs that year had only 1 all star (tony parker) and 0 all NBA 0 all def
Yea he lost me there
He said pookie bear and jorkin my peantis and made a better call Saul reference and it’s not even been 45 minutes
Cleveland was definitely a superteam in the 2010’s. Kyrie was a emerging young star guard who made the all star team twice before lebron got there and Kevin love was a 26 and 14 player before being traded to Cleveland, that was definitely a superteam and you’re disrespecting kyrie and love for saying it wasn’t.
The showtime lakers were by far a superteam. They won 47 games and made it to the second round of the playoffs then were able to draft Magic Johnson number 1. Kareem literally wins mvp Magic’s rookie year and then Magic wins the fmvp. They won 2 chips in 3 seasons and then drafted James worthy number one after WINNING 57 GAMES. In addition to those 3 they had Michael cooper, norm Nixon who was the lakers’ point guard for Magic’s first four seasons, Jamaal Wilkes, Rambis, etc. this team was insane throughout the 80s winning 50% of the decade’s championships.
Now that you mention it, the Showtime Lakers were definitely a superteam. Because how often do you get the number one pick AFTER winning a championship? On top of having it happen TWICE after making the playoffs in a 5-year span?
Michael cooper was also the dpoy in 1987
Michael Cooper was a DPOY to go with an all time great offense , Bird said he was the best defender he's ever played against , They were stacked ! Worthy was FMVP in 88 while Byron Scott lead the team in scoring to go along with Magic and Kareem ! Showtime was as "Super" as you can get
@@akeme25I’m stupid but was it literally just random back then on who gets the first pick?😂
@@alarrim29574 No it was 1 of the 2 worst teams in the league would get the number 1 pick based on a coin flip. The Lakers just got their number 1 picks from trades they made years prior. They were just lucky the teams they traded with were so bad while they had already started winning championships lol
12 minutes in and I’m yelling at my phone. Rusty, The Bulls were not a super team. Having a “borderline” superstar, or even 2 superstars makes you a “competitive” team, not a super team. A super team is ALWAYS formed through collusion with the goal of weakening in-conference franchises, like poaching.
I feel a team can’t be a super team in hindsight, because creating one needs to be on purpose. Like I don’t consider the pre-Durant warriors a super team because they weren’t assembled to be one, it just worked out that way.
Whereas the KG/Pierce Nets are a super team because, even though they weren’t great, they were assembled to be a bunch of stars on a team.
A super team is more about what’s intended than what actually happens
Yea but Rusty doesnt want the example of the last time a super team worked was the Heatles and discount his GOAT.
In my mind it was also closer to what you described, but I guess everyone has their own definition. I'd say the KD Warriors don't exactly fit this definition either though, as they were the same team and just added KD which is different than completely reinventing your roster around multiple new star players
@@Hikayuhuy which is funny because I actually think it’s becoming a pro-Bron argument. At this point being on a super team statistically doesn’t correlate with winning chips any more than good chemistry does.
And watching Bron lose in 2011 and then just decide he’s just going to run the super team, it speaks more to his elevated status even on a super team than it does his need for them.
@@wakkawakkagaming3710 there is no way to measurably compare the likelihood winning with “good chemistry” as it is an entirely arbitrary and result based qualification, than that of super teams. What is absolutely common sense is super team raise the likelihood of championship for the respective stars. Just because other try to copy your homework shittily and gotten an F, it doesn’t raise your own grade. As matter of fact, if you add in the definition of a super team as team formed to ring chase, the Nets might not even qualify. 1 of their superstar couldn’t give a rat’s ass about doing anything more than the minimum to win and the other was more interested in opening his third eye than championship. The only one remotely interested in a ring was Harden and he arrived in the worst shape of his career so how serious was his commitment anyway. Another conclusion people should make is that super team can only work when the ring chasers, like Bron and KG, actually care to ring chase and not just pay lip service.
Exactly, LeBron has had 3 superteans throughout his career. 1st one with the Heat, 2nd on with the Cavs, and the 2022 Lakers as well.
A superteam is a certain archetype of team, not just a good team.
A superteam is a team with at least 2 superstars and a third star. The 90s Bulls were never a super team. They were a solid team with good role players. If the first 3-peat Bulls were a superteam, then so were the 2020 Lakers.
I love how people don't acknowledge the fact that last years celtics were a super team. Jayson Tatum, Porzingus, brown, Holiday, dude derrick white could probably even be an allstar
“By signing EDP and Gary Payton” 💀💀💀💀 I just burst out laughing while eating💀💀💀
Pfft!
JB is not a superstar but I think he is borderline. He's probably top 15 - besides, Celtics have a bonafide superstar and THREE other all-star caliber players alongside him and they even have a solid bench. Their fit together is incredible too - genuinely, how are they not a superteam? I know it's 2K but in 2K24, they had FIVE PLAYERS 87+ overall or higher. That has to count for something
edit: He addressed it at the end but doesn't the 2024 Celtics fall under the just 'insanely stacked' Bill Russell Celtics umbrella? Obviously, it isn't as extreme of an example but they're still crazy stacked
I just don't get it are they a super team or a team that won the finals because everyone is injured? A super team will not have any doubts with their championship but no people have picked the Dallas to win the finals because the Celtics are "chokers" or "not battle tested". Now they won what people are saying is that everyone is just injured. So which is which make up your minds
@@PositEeveetya super team will have a ton of doubts about winning a chip. Look at the warriors cavs series and people will say they lose if k love and kyrie aren’t hurt. People even ask what would’ve happened if JR shot the ball. The heatles were some of the most controversial champions I’ve seen in my time watching (like 2006 and on) people even say the Boston big 3 weren’t a super team because they only won once
To me, yes and it's not even a debate. Two at minimum superstars or very close to it with JB, DPOY Marcus Smart, and another all star caliber and all defense player in Jrue AND KP on top of outstanding depth.
Not even a question
@@calvinsimpson1301sir …. Marcus Smart plays for the Memphis Grizzlies and did not win a championship with Boston.
I’ll never forget my high school coach letting me know how Cedric Maxwell was the glue but Bird was the tape.
I'm now just learning that Dwight Howard was left off of the 75th Anniversary team. HOW?!?! Dude was arguably the second best player in the entire league for about five seasons. Nothing he did, or failed to do, after that can erase that stretch of dominance.
The only thing I'll push back on is that one superstar and two stars can, if the fit and supporting cast are good enough, can achieve superteam status
That’s why he said the definition of what constitutes a super team is gonna end up being changed
JB not being a superstar is a crazy sentance🤦🏾♂️
a lot of yall aren't getting the point of the NBA. Teams' number 1 priority is NOT to build a smart championship roster, it is to MAKE MONEY. As long as an NBA team is making money, they don't really care if they're winning or losing or have bad rosters. You say the nets made a huge mistake getting Paul Pierce and KG, but as you said they moved to Brooklyn recently with a new stadium, and they needed money. They knew that move wasn't gonna win them a championship, but they still traded but NOT to win one. They made it to get money, which they absolutely got from fans. Just take a look at how much profits they made during that stretch when they needed to show investors that they were making money (cuz of the move to bkl and new stadium etc). In our eyes, the nets move was trash but in the eyes of an NBA owner, it was a W move. In the end Celtics made money, Nets made money, players made money, RUclipsrs and analysts like Rusty made money, and we (bottom of the pyramid) gave them our time and money. LOL
😆
Great point Sammy. A much often misunderstood part of getting the big names is not just how they perform on the basketball court, but if they get people in seats, jersey sales or even just some amount of expectation and media buzz around the team.
Steve Balmer, from the Clippers, understands this like no other. Kawhi might never have another healthy season in his life, but we all know the man is still a force of nature when he is actually at full strength.
But, wouldn't it be better if you had a long-term championship competitive product would make your money and be a better investment to build better trust in the fans for more money. A better product = better investment.
@@M_11_m41n Yes, exactly. But it isn't easy to get a championship competitive roster together and even harder to keep it together long term. Also the financial limitations for salary caps and the CBA are at play here, otherwise it would just be a matter of investing more capital than opposing teams.
KD gotta be the greatest secondary character in NBA history... Well, him or Wilt.
I definitely was about to mention wilt, Kareem or Kobe...all did more than kd as secondary stars as well as primary stars
@@deonlepharaoh Kareems peak was still as the main show. Same with Kobe.
@@KatarHero72 nobody talking about peaks
7:43 doesn't Jaylen Brown winning conference and finals mvp literally mean he was the best player on a championship winning team?😂
I mean didn't Igudalla win finals MVP
Iggy and Kawhi 2014 would like a word
Aight I’m gonna throw a rebuttal in here though I think there’s a kernel of truth in your statement. Being VOTED the most valuable player in a 7 game series does not definitively correlate to you being the best player in a 101 game season that resulted in a chip. Though there is an argument (not 100% but there is one) that JB vs JT is a 1a/1b situation.
@@lorddj9910Both those guys won because they guarded bron who was the best player in both series.
No, It means he had the best performance in that series. JT is clearly better.
Chris Bosh’s career being cut short by health issues is still the saddest thing to happen in the nba
😂 I love you bro but you just WON'T give JB his flowers and I can't 😅😂😂
These are always some of the best NBA videos on RUclips! I only wish the NFL and MLB had similar levels of quality deep dives. Hats off to you and the entire RustyBuckets team, keep up the amazing work!
I think the reason why the NFL doesn't have deep dives similar to this is because there's so many more players on the team compared to the NBA. Also, I think coaching matters more in the NFL than the NBA to a certain extent. That's why you only see career retrospectives on individual players(Dan Marino, Peyton Manning, Randy Moss), a team for a particular year (2000 Ravens, 2015 Broncos or Panthers, 2007 and 2011 Giants, etc), or even more rare than the previous 2, dynasties or potential dynasties (Patriots 2000-2019, 80s 49ers, 90s Cowboys, Legion of Boom Seahawks, Greatest Show on Turf Rams, etc)
It will be interesting to see how the second apron changes the trajectory of the league outside of pretty much destroying superteams. Also to see how NBA fans react to the new landscape.
I was discussing this with my bro. The second apron will exist as Adam Silver's single most important decision of his reign as the commissioner, and his legacy will be remembered either fondly or negatively as a result of it.
Does the second apron make it harder to sign depth after three players?
@@jaydag24 Nobody gets a superteam, whether you trade for it or build through the draft and people are already complaining about organically built teams being affected. VERY interesting lol
@@fortynights1513 Its essentially a hard cap that affects team building. Look at the Suns, three players on max deals and half the roster is minimum contracts.
Basically, the second apron means favors franchise player smart enough like Duncan and Nowitzky before who made a cut in their contract, which will give their team a massive boost for the title unlike all the players who claim they want the title but take their max contract and weakened their own team (if you make a party but keep all the cake for yourself, don't blame others if they don't come).
I think one of the other symptoms of a failing super team that you didn’t mention is the “good stats, bad team” conundrum. Good stats on a bad team almost never translate to good stats on a winning team. Big stats on loosing teams when the ball is in your hands a lot is typically a big indicator of empty calorie stats, and when you go to a contender, either those empty calorie stats go away and a 25-30 ppg guy becomes a 15-20 ppg guy, or that play style is forced and the team is worse for it. So if your contending team trades for a guy that’s putting up 25-30ppg on a loosing team, expect that guy to be far more underwhelming on your team, like Bradley Beal to the suns, Kevin love to the cavs, melo to the thunder, etc. etc.
“It always comes back to Kevin Durant”
It always comes back to 'not jorking your own peantis'
The editing and overall composition of this video is so well done. Amazing work
your definition includes the '24 celtics. superstar, borderline superstar, another borderline superstar, and insane roleplayers
Who’s the other borderline superstar ???
@@rustybuckets the definition feels more like it’s trying to stick to the motif of big 3s more than superteam, the celtics are definitely a superteam. the worst player in their starting 5 just won an olympic gold medal, JT is all nba and got mvp votes, JB an all star + finals mvp and clearly showed he is capable of being the best player on the team on any given night, KP a borderline all star talent and jrue is the best defensive guard in the league + 2nd team all defense. if that’s not a superteam just because it’s not a meeting your big 3 criteria then you should probably change the title of the video to the fall of the big 3 era
@@rustybuckets Mans got rusty in here demanding receipts. Hope he replies, genuinely curios who tf blud is yappin about.
@@bakedizzle24 Now you're just nitpicking. he already addressed it at the end of the video. the classic superteam is the big 3 but the celtics (an in my view the championship year nuggets) are what the new version will look like.
@@WilfredBlackwell it’s a critical analysis video, the function of it is to nitpick and be nitpicked lol
Your logic and criteria is all over the place. The 2016 Cavs were most definitely a super team. Kyrie when healthy in the playoffs out preformed a lot of number 1 options as a number 2. Including 2017 as well. K love was still a rebounding machine who had be come a knock down spot up shooter and still allstar caliber. Jr smith wasn’t too far removed form his 6th man of the year selection and Tristan Thompson was no scrub either. Kyle korver and Richard Jefferson off the bench. And the heat were a super team for all 4 years. 3 at the worst. I see through all the glazing bro.
Thank you bro, for calling out his bullshit rusty took a mad L for this
I think I agree that the 2016 Cavs are a super team. Especially I have issues with not giving Kyrie credit for being probably one of the most dangerous and consistant scoring options in the league. Even still to this day in Dallas, he is probably one of the best offensive options to have on a team and in Cleveland he was even more explosive than he is today.
Sure, it is nice to have guys that are larger, can defend better and shoot catch and shoot 3's at a reasonable percentage, but having a legit top level shooter that is also extremely dynamic on-ball and a very good playmaker is just a truly rare combination. Outside of Curry, there is no other player in the league that can shoot as well, has the same amount of ball handling and the same amount of gravity as a playmaker.
Your right about everything 100% but Kyle Korver wasn’t on that 2016 Cavs team lmaooo
Thank you for calling this out. Rusty is just trying to prop up someone who has no business being in the GOAT conversation. He's glazing LeBron hard.
Kyrie Irving was never as good as #1 options. A big reason why he could perform so well is because he played with LeBron. On his own, he couldn't lead a team anywhere. His counting stats didn't negate the fact that the advanced stats, and the teams success, absolutely did not see him as a superstar. He just didn't have the impact.
If K Love was also an elite defender your argument would be stronger. JR was still a solid player, but he was 5 seasons removed from his 6MOY form. He was clearly worse and he was a starter, not coming off the bench.
RJ was fine but c'mon. You're hyping up 5ppg on like 15-20 minutes a game. Korver wasn't on the championship winning Cavs.
It’s always a good day when Rusty Buckets uploads keep up the good work!!!!
I hate the blatant overuse of the word "superstar." At any given time, I believe there are only five or six true superstars in the league.
I’ve heard various definitions of “superteams”. Should be an interesting video.
3 high level all stars together
Well Im dumb. Ofc it doesnt always work 😂
Gorgeous script, videography, and editing. Great video.
2013 Miami Heat went on a 27 game win streak. That’s a superteam
Everyone knows that
Easy ride to the finals those 4 years, no one in the East could do anything
A super team is not organically created. You miss that aspect. Players are colluding to draw in all star talent to their teams in a way where the front offices aren’t really negotiating for anyone.
The Heat, GSW, Nets, 2016 Cavs, and Clippers were all inorganic super teams brought together through player collusion. Big 3 Boston, OKC, and current Boston are just smart front office moves to get talented players to work under an even better coach.
Dirk is the reason Bron can never be the GOAT
From SUPER-teams to super-TEAMS. Wembanyama will be the star of the future not just because he is an alien but also because of his approach to training mobility. Teams organisational capacities, training staffs - psychologists - nutrutionists etc. will be a difference maker in the future, for both attracting talent but also winning
Celtics are just modern super team. 1-2 superstars with 3-4 star caliber players.
Is Jason Tatum really a superstar player, or so much better than JB, or even KP, Jrue or White? Seriously all of these players are top quality NBA players and I don't believe Tatum is so much better than the rest just because he has the name recognition and takes more shots.
Sure, he is an amazing two-way talent (which is still somewhat uncommon in the league) but he isn't that much better than the rest of his team and some argue he isn't at all better than JB for example.
I can certainly see he was mainly in MVP talks because he was 'seen' as the best player on the top team in the league, but in terms of efficiency and raw impact, he is leagues behind the Jokic, Luka, Embiid, Giannis, Shai, Curry or even an unassuming guy like Haliburton. (who pre-injury broke quite a few impact metrics last season)
Now I'm not trying to bash on Tatum, or discredit the Boston Celtics nor their performance. They won a fair championship and had a very well oiled machine powered by a smart, versatile squad of veteran players and a few key roleplayers of the bench. I'm just trying to bring my arguments against their 'superteam' status, as they seem to be all a tiny bit lower on the rung of pure talent, while their average talent level still is very high. (all top 50, even Al Horford)
For some reason my original comment got deleted. I made a supernice comment about the very high quality of the video.
To repeat myself again but hopefully it stays up this time: The narration, editing and even the entire flow and feel of the video was very well done. There was a logical progression and structure to the video's timeline that never felt off. Thanks to Jacob and Rudy for making such a fun and interesting deep dive.
Feel like Jaylen brown is a superstar. Don’t know if he’s better than Tatum. But he’s right there.
I think JB is slightly worse than Tatum but both are elite on both ends of the floor
A lot of people think JB is the most talented player, or the most reliable one. He certainly takes a few less shots and has worse name recognition. Personally I think they are about equal, with slightly different qualities.
@@pinobluevogel6458as a Celtics fan who loves both, they’re not equal and it becomes obvious when you watch the games, especially now when the 24/25 season has started.
JT always requires a lot more defensive attention than JB does - him drawing the double is one of the cornerstones of the Celtics offense and the offense flows really well whenever JT runs it while it looks more stagnant when JB runs the second unit because he tends to go into the paint and not dish it out, instead only looking for lobs which is why he works so well with KP.
They’re closer to the same level on defense, though they’re good at different things. JB is a monster on the perimiter and his ability to lock onto ball handlers is incredible, while JT’s ability to guard 1-5 is what really helped neutralise the Mavericks in the finals.
They’re an amazing duo, but there’s a reason why Tatum has been in fringe MVP conversations the past few seasons while JB only has one All NBA second team.
@@clarasundqvist6013 Let's get one thing straight: I'm not a fan of both players or the team, but I do think you make some excellent points. I have seen Tatum play a lot better this season so far. The reason I thought JT wasn't much better than JB before was his efficiency, his reliability in the clutch and his playoff efficiency as a whole.
Last year he was good, but not MVP worthy and JT really fell off in the playoffs, shooting a measly 27% from three, at quite a few attempts that is a lot of bricking and not great for the team's success. All of this happened while JB was slightly better than his regular season performance, being just a little bit more reliable by forcing to go to the rim with his speed.
Coming away from that season, I think this is the main reason I believe they were basically similar in effectiveness or player value. A lot of what makes a player have bigger box score numbers is just opportunity and because Tatum is just a little higher in the pecking order, he simply takes more shots and has slightly higher numbers, while the efficiency is more or less the same.
Finally, I really think their gameplan and execution of that plan was what did the Mavericks in. The Mavs didn't have a great matchup, some players (at least Luka) had some niggling injuries that slowed them and Kyrie definitely underperformed, which is part his own fault and partly due to having Jrue and JB on him for most of the game. They really defended him well. It sucks to have your most reliable player not be great, he's normally even more reliable than Luka in nearly all cases.
Although I have to say there was 1 Mavs win in that finals that was a complete blowout the other way, which gives some hint that it might not be as easy for the Celtics then next time.
Thanks for going into the player comparison some more. I do believe they are 2 of the most flexible and effective starplayers in the league, being able to do a little bit of everything quite well is extremely valueable. The additions of KP and Jrue just put this team over the top and I hope there will be more teams than the Pacers that will give them some more opposition.
@@pinobluevogel6458 We're ridiculously spoiled with this team tbh. JT has been on fire to start the season, he's been allowed to play for longer stretches to start the game which I think suits him, last season he'd sit around half and get going more after halftime. If he can keep this up and Boston keeps dominating, I think he'll have a more realistic shot at MVP than previously - but I have my doubts since his usage will likely go down with KP returning. I won't go into my opinions on the MVP race in general, but I agree that with how the award is determined now, he wasn't a fit last season.
I totally get *why* someone would rate them as equals - they've been a package deal their entire careers so it's natural. But if we look at how they fare when the other is out since 2021 (when they became the undisputed first options, post-Kyrie/Kemba/Hayward), JB is 11-6 (54% loss) without JT while JT is 30-10 (33% loss) without JB. It isn't a perfect comparison since the sample sizes are different and other factors are at play, but I think it still speaks to that JB struggles more without JT than the other way around. I think this speaks to the biggest difference between them - especially last season and this one, JT's playmaking skills have taken an extra leap while JB's haven't, so he struggles more as a first option than JT does.
JB had a great playoff run and deserved the FMVP just for locking up Luka as well as he did, but without Tatum defending the 5 the Mavs still get their lobs, which we saw in game 4. While his efficiency fell off, JT still led the team in points (42% FG which isn't great but only 2% worse than Luka - the 3 was bad), rebounds and assists and showing up when needed - JB got the clutch shot in game 3 of the Pacers series, while JT is the reason they won in overtime. Is it a worse performance than he should've given? Absolutely, but it wasn't a chokejob JB had to save him from.
I think we're underestimating how valuable guys like the Jays actually are. Two way guys who are more or less always available (especially JT, currently side-eyeing JB's hip flexor) and who are, as you said, good/great at pretty much everything. The current state in OKC worries me a little, but for now our biggest competition really seem to be the Pacers simply because they play so god damn fast lmao
Seems like your new direction with the channel is working out really well. I like the long format stuff a lot, myself. Hope you're doing good, Rusty Buckets !
32:20 alright that got a chuckle out of me
The lesson here, KD has destroyed like 5 diff franchises
I'm sorry, jork on your WHAT
awesome video! love to see the evolution of your channel as you were the first person i watched for nba talk when i first got into the sport. love the team you have with you and the shootaround boys and cant wait to see what you all come up with next!
He has made more evergreen content lately and I’m here for it.
so this guy defines his superteam but still manages to fuck up which ones are the superteams
Exactly 😂😂 mf said the early Jordan bulls are a superteam but the CLE big 3 weren’t rusty definitely a clown show 🤡 after that
Great episode rusty, watching the full thing was worth it
Always a good time hearing some KD and James Harden hate 👌👌👌
1:01:17 last year tyus jones was the best wizards player 😭😭😭
I'm amazed there's no mention of KD testing the Super team waters with the prototype superteam Thunder before jumping to a full super team with the Warriors. He got a taste, liked it but it wasn't enough, moved to the best team ever, thought he could do better himself and failed to recreate magic ever since.
I wasn't recommended or notified this vid, I just thought "I haven't seen a Rusty Buckets vid in a while"; made my way here and was pleasantly surprised lol
Rusty real comfortable with the nicknames this video
Great vid Rusty, also it was amazing hearing the Celtics praise, never thought I’d see the day. Love it
I think the skill gap between superstars and role players has shrunk significantly over the last few years and you don’t necessarily need multiple stars to win anymore
That makes sense. The skill requirements have dipped significantly.
These new style of videos are top notch, phenomenal work wow man
1:08 My guess: the salary cap rules 🤔
Correct answer
Bc owners of non super teams hate super teams
Mj being S+, Pippen being A, then role players, is NOT a super team.
You telling me a team full of guys like Luc Longley John Paxson BJ Armstrong and Bill Cartwright aren’t super team material
I have a hard time seeing the difference between the shaq and koby lakers and Jordans Bulls. Both were two superstars and a bunch of good role players.
I think the Lakers had two legit superstars, while Pippin is questionable, especially on the threepeat.
Lol. Took me a second to get the Drake reference. Good one.
i always thought that a superstar is an elite allstar player/generational talent but is also well known by non-basketball people (e.g Lebron, Curry, and KD). everybody else is just a regular star
Don’t normally comment. Really like these “deep dive” vids. Keep doing your thing, Rusty
Good video but you really gotta leave some of your personal biases and dislikes out of these deep dive videos man. Videos like this are so much better when the person doing them is neutral and just focusing on the facts.
Rusty has increased my ball knowledge exponentially, thank you boss
we makin it out the 6-year streak of no repeat champions with this one 🔥🔥🔥
A big three is not a super team. A super team is a big 4 with surrounding talent that can start for other teams
Get this homie on ESPN!!!
What the f should he do on such a demented channel on such an outdated medium like television? Hell no.
4:33 your superstar definition is wack imo
10:07 the bulls aren’t a super team 🤦🏾♂️
Honestly hope the era of superteams can make a comeback. Despite what hardcore fans say, nothing is more exciting in the NBA than a seemingly unstoppable dynasty.
great vid thanks Rusty Buckets
Video starts at 3:03
Bulls werent Superteam, just great team. Because if you are going to include Superstar, borderline Superstar and great role players as "Superteam", what are you calling Lakers with Bron and AD? "Death of Big 3" is better name of video. Also, I am sorry, but gaslighting how "It was Wade team so they lost 2011 Finals" doesnt work at all. Everybody knows why they lost that Finals. And it wasnt because of Wade.
Yeah the bulls never were a superteam unless you want to call a lot of duo led teams a superteam
This is a great video bud, you and the team outdid yourselves 👍👍
There were big 3s before Boston. The NJ nets with Vince, Kidd, and Jefferson was considered a big 3 at the time, mind you when they acquired Vince the nets went to the finals in back to back years and Richard Jefferson was an all star
No doubt, also the 2003 or 04 Mavs with the two Antwan’s.
But is it safe to say that prior to the 2008 Celtics, few teams like that had succeeded?
Those nets weren't considered a big 3 or superteam at all . A team is considered a superteam if they have 3 players on the roster that were their previous teams 1st option at the time they were traded. Also Vince Carter wasn't on the nets teams that reached the NBA finals.
Fantastic video- thanks for making these
The whole point behind the 2024 celtics not being a superteam doesn’t really matter. Jaylen Brown not being a superstar is irrelevant, because he gets payed as if he is. They have 2 players on a supermax and 2 other players on other types of max contracts, plus other guys making a bunch of money. So their players are getting payed as if it was a superteam. So a superteam is very possible to build in the current era if you have bird rights to these players
Technically this does not follow the same definition of superteam that is outlined in the video. They are a 'stacked' team, with very good NBA talent as the first 5 players, a borderline top 50 player and 2 very solid shooting roleplayers from the bench.
And don't forget the Kornfather himself, his shotblocking from range truly revolutionized the sport.
i love these long videos, cant wait for more deep dive vids, by far your best series
Could it be said the 2024 Celtics clear the “.5” part with flying colors?
Yea with adding jrue and porzingiz this year they were already pushing super team in my eyes, really surprised rusty doesn't think they are
They basically barely make it. They have five legit .5 superstars on the team, which combines to a total of 2.5 superstars, rounding up to a full three.
Holiday was a all star last year and porzingis is a former all star
Videos like this are great, because they remind me of just how amazing MJ, Olajuwon, and Jokic are. In terms of what they were able to do with the cast they had. You could throw Dirk and Duncan in there, as well
Video was perfect until the bias and hate started to show through. Keep it professional buddy, a lot of your audience doesn’t share your specific bias.
yeah he a hater
Nicely put. This dude probably does not want your comment to be visible though.
What bias? The valid criticism of KD and the suns??
@@tonyjaminibruh I don’t think rusty has ever had a history of silencing anyone he encourages discourse u must be new or sum
@@540jade yes its valid but it's the tone of his content.
Was a bit late to this but I'm glad I finally found time to give it a watch. Been a while since I've thought about some of these guys and teams.
Players teaming up in their prime are superteams
I appreciate that last bit about the Celtics - and it actually might've evolved. A team of superstar role players might now be that new definition. Upcoming season's Thunder seems really close to that definition.
I might also add that many people also differentiate superteams from a team full of drafted stars. Warriors before KD, Spurs through entire Duncan era, and even the first 3-peat Bulls all developed their stars from day one.
1st three peat bulls were definitely not a super team. Scottie was great for his era but never capable of being the best player on a championship team.
That’s a stretch , when he lead they almost got to the Eastern Conference Finals .. we never got the chance to see him get a team built around him but we did see 40 point playoff games & games had he not produced & produced big they would’ve went home.
& if you think Reggie Miller who was a first option was better you’re crazy… Pippen during the championship runs averages almost as much as most teams first options
Bill Cartwright and super team in one sentence is crazy :)
@@Supreme36074people underrate Pippen and it sucks. Jordan fanboys can’t stand the fact that Jordan actually did have help
Rusty explained it pretty well, they definitely were.
Another hell of a job, Rusty. Great video!
Chris Bosh is definitely a SUPERSTAR FIRST BALLAD HALL OF FAME 5+ TIME ALL-STAR AND LEAD THE RAPTORS TO MULTIPLE PLAYOFFS
No one ever thought the 2015 Hawks was a superteam
Nah, they’re not the best ever.
You’re just too young to understand. The Warriors have NO ANSWER for the 85 or 87 Lakers. 85 Lakers had a 38 YEAR OLD WHO WON FINALS MVP-AGAINST THE VERY BEST FRONT-COURT IN NBA HISTORY IN 1987, they beat BOS again.
87 Lakers would’ve absolutely blitzed those Warriors. Unlike GSW, the 87 Lakers 6th man was DPOY and was the best defender Larry Bird ever saw.
2001 Lakers were far bigger and shot just as well as GSW-just not as often.
You underestimate every great team of the past just bc. While I agree that 1991-1993 was probably better, your video only included them bc of Jordan.
Name the player guarding Shaq or Kobe? 😂😂😂😂
My personal history with superteams:
I had to burn a Dwade jersey, poster & shoes when LBJ went to Miami.
I hate Paul Pierce & the 08 Celtics so much I could never root or be happy for Jayson Tatum.
KD going to Warriors, caused me to do something I never thought possible...... Rooting for Lebron in the finals.
I would call 24 Boston Celtics a super team
Hard to considering a lot of their heavy hitters were from the draft and incase of jrue and KPorz, trading their draftees (Smart etc)
I find it interesting how most NBA fans hate super teams and the teams/players who form them, while in soccer super teams are the norm which all other teams strive for and fans applaud.
Cummy buckets gonna take us out the hood with this one
Huh?
@@ajfierro98 u heard me fggt…cummy buckets finna get us out the hood🪣🇮🇳
wow what a great video i hope all of the comments aren't people who are debating a claim about the celtics made within the first 10 minutes of this 1 hour video
Cant wait for LeFraud to retire and so long all the nasty practices. Media and ref bribing, load management for stat padding against weak teams, etc etc etc
What does any of that have to do with Bron?
I would never have imagined that Mozart and Rusty could be so dope of a duo.
Good shit rusty 👏🏾
It is what a rusty bucket is for, for some good shit.