Yesterday, the Golden State Warriors completed their magical run with a win over the Cleveland Cavaliers, one which gave the Warriors a 4-2 series victory in the 2015 NBA Finals. It marked the first league championship for the franchise in 40 years. Although it came with some early struggles, the Warriors turned the series around expanding the usage of veterans David Lee and Andre Iguodala and implementing a smaller lineup that developed a pace for friendly for the team’s stellar perimeter shooting. Considering that the team also achieved this with the standout play of three under-27 players, many wonder if this is the first of several championships in the upcoming years. Heck, few are even throwing out the “d-word” as a possibility. Does Golden State’s youth have what it takes to build a dynasty?
Although David Lee helped out nicely in this series, he didn’t average enough postseason minutes to qualify as a standout player. This means that all three standout players for Golden State this season were younger than 27 years of age as of February 1. It marks the first time an NBA champion pulled this off since the 1976-77 Portland Trail Blazers. That team was aided heavily by the NBA-ABA merger, getting two of those three pieces in the previous off-season. Golden State reached their championship aspirations in a much different fashion, drafting all three standout players. To recap, here’s how the three standout players were drafted:
- Stephen Curry (26 as of Feb. 1; 27 now): drafted seventh overall in 2009; 15.7 Win Shares this season
- Klay Thompson (24 as of Feb. 1; 25 now): drafted 11th overall in 2011; 8.8 Win Shares this season
- Draymond Green (24 as of Feb. 1; 25 now): drafted in the second round in 2012; 8.5 Win Shares this season
With an organically built young standout core and a strong supporting cast, the Warriors broke out and won the NBA Finals despite having no previous experience at the championship level. However, now that this trio has Finals experience under their belt, does that mean they have what it takes to become a dynasty? We look at the past history of NBA Champions to determine the answer.
The Golden State Warriors celebrate their first NBA championship in 40 years. (photo rights to David Liam Kyle / NBAE via Getty Images)
YOUNGEST STANDOUT CORES OF NBA CHAMPIONS
Looking at the age (as of February 1 of the given year) of each standout player of each NBA champion in the post-merger era, we can see the youngest standout championship cores. With three players under 27 years old at the turn to February, Golden State will definitely have one of the youngest post-merger mean age. In fact, the 2014-15 Warriors are one of just 10 champions since the merger to have a mean standout age under 27 years old among their standout players (elder statesmen included).
Table 1: NBA Champions and Their “Standout” Players (with age)
| Champion | W-L (Seed) | Player 1 | Player 2 | Player 3 | Player(s) 4+ | Mean |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2014-15 Warriors | 67-15 (W1) | S. Curry (26) | K. Thompson (24) | D. Green (24) | – | 24.666 |
| 2013-14 Spurs | 62-20 (W1) | K. Leonard (22) | M. Ginobili (36) | P. Mills (25) | T. Duncan (37) T. Splitter (29) |
29.8 |
| 2012-13 Heat | 66-16 (E1) | L. James (28) | D. Wade (31) | C. Bosh (28) | R. Allen (37) | 31 |
| 2011-12 Heat | 46-20 (E2) | L. James (27) | D. Wade (30) | C. Bosh (27) | – | 28 |
| 2010-11 Mavericks | 57-25 (W3) | D. Nowitzki (32) | T. Chandler (28) | J. Kidd (37) | – | 32.333 |
| 2009-10 Lakers | 57-25 (W1) | P. Gasol (29) | K. Byrant (31) | A. Bynum (22) | – | 27.333 |
| 2008-09 Lakers | 65-17 (W1) | P. Gasol (28) | K. Bryant (30) | A. Bynum (21) | – | 26.333 |
| 2007-08 Celtics | 66-16 (E1) | K. Garnett (31) | P. Pierce (30) | R. Allen (32) | J. Posey (31) | 31 |
| 2006-07 Spurs | 58-24 (W3) | T. Duncan (30) | M. Ginobili (29) | T. Parker (24) | – | 27.666 |
| 2005-06 Heat | 52-30 (W2) | D. Wade (24) | S. O’Neal (33) | G. Payton (37) | – | 31.333 |
| 2004-05 Spurs | 59-23 (W2) | T. Duncan (28) | M. Ginobili (27) | B. Barry (33) | – | 29.333 |
| 2003-04 Pistons | 54-28 (E3) | C. Billups (27) | B. Wallace (29) | **R. Wallace (29)** | – | 28.333 |
| 2002-03 Spurs | 60-22 (W1) | T. Duncan (26) | D. Robinson (37) | – | – | 31.5 |
| 2001-02 Lakers | 58-24 (W3) | S. O’Neal (29) | K. Bryant (23) | – | – | 26 |
| 2000-01 Lakers | 56-26 (W2) | S. O’Neal (28) | K. Bryant (22) | – | – | 25 |
| 1999-2000 Lakers | 67-15 (W1) | S. O’Neal (27) | K. Bryant (21) | G. Rice (32) | R. Horry (29) | 27.25 |
| 1998-99 Spurs | 37-13 (W1) | T. Duncan (22) | D. Robinson (33) | M. Elie (35) | – | 30 |
| 1997-98 Bulls | 62-20 (E1) | M. Jordan (34) | S. Pippen (32) | S. Kerr (32) | – | 32.666 |
| 1996-97 Bulls | 69-13 (E1) | M. Jordan (33) | S. Pippen (31) | T. Kukoc (28) | S. Kerr (31) | 30.75 |
| 1995-96 Bulls | 72-10 (E1) | M. Jordan (32) | S. Pippen (30) | T. Kukoc (27) | S. Kerr (30) R. Harper (32) |
30.2 |
| 1994-95 Rockets | 47-35 (W6) | C. Drexler (32) | H. Olajuwon (32) | – | – | 32 |
| 1993-94 Rockets | 58-24 (W2) | H. Olajuwon (31) | O. Thorpe (31) | – | – | 31 |
| 1992-93 Bulls | 57-25 (E2) | M. Jordan (29) | H. Grant (27) | S. Pippen (27) | – | 27.666 |
| 1991-92 Bulls | 67-15 (E1) | M. Jordan (28) | H. Grant (26) | S. Pippen (26) | – | 26.666 |
| 1990-91 Bulls | 61-21 (E1) | M. Jordan (27) | S. Pippen (25) | H. Grant (25) | – | 25.666 |
| 1989-90 Pistons | 59-23 (E1) | B. Laimbeer (32) | D. Rodman (28) | J. Dumars (26) | – | 28.666 |
| 1988-89 Pistons | 63-19 (E1) | B. Laimbeer (31) | D. Rodman (27) | – | – | 29 |
| 1987-88 Lakers | 62-20 (W1) | M. Johnson (28) | B. Scott (26) | K. Abdul- Jabbar (40) |
– | 31.333 |
| 1986-87 Lakers | 65-17 (W1) | M. Johnson (27) | J. Worthy (25) | A.C. Green (23) | K. Abdul- Jabbar (39) |
28.5 |
| 1985-86 Celtics | 67-15 (E1) | L. Bird (29) | K. McHale (28) | R. Parish (32) | – | 29.666 |
| 1984-85 Lakers | 62-20 (W1) | M. Johnson (25) | K. Abdul- Jabbar (37) |
– | – | 31 |
| 1983-84 Celtics | 62-20 (E1) | L. Bird (27) | K. McHale (26) | R. Parish (30) | – | 27.666 |
| 1982-83 76ers | 65-17 (E1) | M. Malone (27) | J. Erving (32) | M. Cheeks (26) | B. Jones (31) | 29 |
| 1981-82 Lakers | 57-25 (W1) | M. Johnson (22) | K. Abdul- Jabbar (34) |
– | – | 28 |
| 1980-81 Celtics | 62-20 (W1) | C. Maxwell (25) | R. Parish (27) | L. Bird (24) | – | 25.333 |
| 1979-80 Lakers | 60-22 (W1) | K. Abdul- Jabbar (32) |
M. Johnson (20) | J. Wilkes (26) | – | 26 |
| 1978-79 SuperSonics | 52-30 (W1) | J. Sikma (23) | G. Williams (25) | – | – | 24 |
| 1977-78 Bullets | 44-38 (E3) | E. Hayes (32) | – | – | – | 32 |
| 1976-77 Trail Blazers | 49-33 (W3) | B. Walton (24) | M. Lucas (24) | D. Twardzik (26) | – | 24.666 |
Note: Age is as of February 1 in the given basketball year (e,g,: February 1, 2015 for the 2014-15 season)
The 10 teams with a standout player mean age under 27 years old are denoted in blue. Besides the 2014-15 Warriors, there is a notable mix of repeat champs, up-and-coming “dynasties” and one-hit wonders. In total, the 10 champions in blue accounted for 19 championships (with at least two of the standout players in the team’s core remaining in tact). This excludes the first the Lakers three consecutive championships at the turn of the century, so if it’s included, we’re looking at the two-championship average for each young champion (including the repeat teams). This means on average the Warriors will be able to repeat.
The last team to achieve this feat was the 2008-09 Lakers, who lost in the Finals the previous year. The addition of Pau Gasol made the preceding Lakers team a championship contender, but this Lakers team solidified a title when young Andrew Bynum remained healthy. Unfortunately, Bynum’s run in Los Angeles was over by 2012, so his impact on the team’s mean standout age was limited. Before that, Kobe Bryant was the young up-and-comer. He worked with Shaquille O’Neal as the 2000-01 Lakers and 2001-02 Lakers both had an under-27 core. The championship accolades ended there, though, primarily due to the Shaq-Kobe split in 2004. It also didn’t that the Pistons defeated the Lakers in the 2004 Finals after acquiring Rasheed Wallace in a mid-season trade.
The only other back-to-back under-27 champions fully recognized their potential. The 1991-92 Bulls and 1990-91 Bulls had a standout core with a mean age under-27, led by Michael Jordan. Scottie Pippen ended up pairing with Jordan to win six NBA championships over eight years. In the two non-championship years, Jordan’s first retirement was the season-defining factor.
Besides that, we see the expected surge in youth immediately after the NBA-ABA merger. We already saw the surge in youth affect our two-point standout player system in our NBA Champions Super Study. Four of the first five post-merger champions had its standout core average under 27 years of age: 1980-81 Celtics, 1979-80 Lakers, 1978-79 SuperSonics and 1976-77 Trail Blazers. The SuperSonics and Trail Blazers never won a championship again. The Celtics and Lakers won eight of the 10 championships in the 1980’s. Such a stark contrast can be expected when there were four potential “dynasties” to emerge in five years. This is a notable outlier.
OVERALL MEAN AGE AND MEAN TENURE OF THE UNDER-27 STANDOUTS
Let’s look further at the 10 champions of note. We need to go beyond just the standout players to determine what the team may be able to achieve in the future. Sure, teams like the SuperSonics and Trail Blazers fell short of repeat aspirations, but all the others raised the Larry O’Brien Trophy again. We looked at the respective core of each team, but we need to also look at the rest of the team to see if the team has the ability to adapt to future years. Were the future “dynasties” in the NBA built by teams that were young all around? Were they teams with strong supporting casts that lasted a long time on their respective teams? Answers to both questions may help us determine what lies ahead for the Golden State Warriors. Hence, we look at mean age and mean tenure of each under-27 champions.
For each of the 10 teams, we will account for each player with 20+ games played and 10+ regular season minutes played per game. Furthermore, both the mean age and mean tenure (re: future years with the team in question) will be weighted by Win Shares. Players who left mid-season will earn a half year. Also, we do not include the latter years for players who return back to that team.
- 2014-15 Warriors (67-15): 26.43 Win Share-weighted mean age, TBD Win Share-weighted mean tenure
- 2008-09 Lakers (65-17): 27.66 Win Share-weighted mean age, 3.48 Win Share-weighted mean tenure (with one player active)
- 2001-02 Lakers (58-24): 27.27 Win Share-weighted mean age, 4.18 Win Share-weighted mean tenure (with one player active)
- 2000-01 Lakers (56-26): 28.39 Win Share-weighted mean age, 4.68 Win Share-weighted mean tenure (with one player active)
- 1991-92 Bulls (67-15): 27.16 Win Share-weighted mean age, 3.50 Win Share-weighted mean tenure
- 1990-91 Bulls (61-21): 26.75 Win Share-weighted mean age, 4.61 Win Share-weighted mean tenure
- 1980-81 Celtics (62-20): 26.50 Win Share-weighted mean age, 7.28 Win Share-weighted mean tenure
- 1979-80 Lakers (60-22): 26.46 Win Share-weighted mean age, 7.01 Win Share-weighted mean tenure
- 1978-79 SuperSonics (52-30): 26.02 Win Share-weighted mean age, 3.72 Win Share-weighted mean tenure
- 1976-77 Trail Blazers (49-33): 24.53 Win Share-weighted mean age, 2.30 Win Share-weighted mean tenure
Looking at these ten teams, not much stands out relative to their peers. The 1976-77 Trail Blazers seem to be the biggest exception of the bench, having a mean age at least 1.5 years younger than the rest in this sample. However, the team failed to make the most of that uncanny youth due to its mean tenure being at least a year shorter than the rest. Besides that outlier, the extended mean tenure of the 1979-80 Lakers and 1980-81 Celtics explain why those two teams dominated the 1980’s.
The rest seems to be quite similar in nature. Beyond the exceptions, each team owns a mean age between 26 and 28 years old while having a mean tenure between three and five years. So what does that mean for these teams, primarily the Warriors?
WHAT’S NEXT FOR THE WARRIORS?
Given the mean tenure for most of these teams, we should only project the next five seasons for the Warriors. Furthermore, we can have a better understanding of that projection by looking at the succeeding five years from each team’s respective championship. This obviously isn’t a fool proof projection, but it will give us some nice insight in what the Warriors can possibly expect.
Table 2: Notable NBA Champions and Their Succeeding Years
| Champion | Year + 1 | Year + 2 | Year + 3 | Year + 4 | Year + 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2014-15 Warriors | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD |
| 2008-09 Lakers | 57-25 (Champs) | 57-25 (WCS) | 41-25 (WCS) | 45-37 (WCQ) | 27-55 (None) |
| 2001-02 Lakers | 50-32 (WCS) | 56-26 (Finals) | 34-48 (None) | 45-37 (WCQ) | 42-40 (WCQ) |
| 2000-01 Lakers | 58-24 (Champs) | 50-32 (WCS) | 56-26 (Finals) | 34-48 (None) | 45-37 (WCQ) |
| 1991-92 Bulls | 57-25 (Champs) | 55-27 (ECS) | 47-35 (ECS) | 72-10 (Champs) | 69-13 (Champs) |
| 1990-91 Bulls | 67-15 (Champs) | 57-25 (Champs) | 55-27 (ECS) | 47-35 (ECS) | 72-10 (Champs) |
| 1980-81 Celtics | 63-19 (ECF) | 56-26 (ECS) | 62-20 (Champs) | 63-19 (Finals) | 67-15 (Champs) |
| 1979-80 Lakers | 54-28 (WCQ) | 57-25 (Champs) | 58-24 (Finals) | 54-28 (Finals) | 62-20 (Champs) |
| 1978-79 SuperSonics | 56-26 (WCF) | 34-48 (None) | 52-30 (WCS) | 48-34 (WCQ) | 42-40 (WCQ) |
| 1976-77 Trail Blazers | 58-24 (WCS) | 45-37 (WCQ) | 38-44 (WCQ) | 45-37 (WCQ) | 42-40 (None) |
ECF: Eastern Conference Finals; WCF: Western Conference Finals
ECS: Eastern Conference Semifinals; WCS: Western Conference Semifinals
ECQ: Eastern Conference Quarterfinals; WCQ: Western Conference Quarterfinals
Looking at the five succeeding years for each of these 10 champions, we can see where the success lies. In 37 individual completed seasons, 10 championships were won in 14 Finals appearances. Perhaps most impressively, these teams only lost in the conference finals twice, resulting in a 14-2 record in that round. Perhaps the previous championship experience had something to do with that. Also of note, seven teams reached the conference semifinals. Finally, of the last 27 individual completed seasons, 21 ended with at least an appearance in the conference semifinals. This bodes well for the Warriors, as long as they keep the young standout core intact.
So what do we see for the 2015-16 Warriors and beyond? Try at least a conference semifinals appearance for next year. Only the 1980-81 Lakers fell short of a conference semifinals appearance among the ‘Year + 1’ teams. In the next two years, expect at least an appearance in the Western Conference Finals. Only the 1977-79 Trail Blazers failed to reach that far among the ‘Year + 1 and + 2’ teams. Finally, a Finals appearance is a near guarantee within the next three years, as each of the last seven teams returned to the finals within the ‘Year + 1, + 2 or +3’ distinction. Overall, we say to expect the Warriors to win another championship within the next five years.
FINAL VERDICT: DYNASTY OR NO DYNASTY?
Looking at the precedent established in this study, we can’t say for certain that the Warriors will establish a dynasty. There are matters of context that played a much more important role that what we established here. For example, Michael Jordan retired from the Bulls after the 1992-93 season, only to return late in the 1994-95 season. By the time the 1995-96 Bulls began the franchise’s second three-peat in eight seasons, the team had a much different team around Jordan and Pippen. In another example, Shaquille O’Neal was traded from the Lakers to the Miami Heat after the 2003-04 season. This left Kobe Bryant to fend for himself, which didn’t end with playoff success in Los Angeles until the franchise got bailed out by the Pau Gasol trade. Note that with Kobe excluded, the 2000-01 Lakers own a 1.97 Win Share-weighted mean tenure. As you should already know from the NBA Champions Super Study, one standout player does not a championship team make. Golden State needs to keep this in mind moving forward.
In this particular case, it’s important to note that Draymond Green is a restricted free agent. Although Green indicated that he wants a max deal, he’s also told the media that he wants to stay with the Warriors. Early signs look good, but if he goes elsewhere, the Warriors already take a significant hit to their future title hopes. In much better news, Klay Thompson signed a four-year extension last November. Stephen Curry resides somewhere in the middle of the other two situation, as he won’t be the an unrestricted free agent until after the 2016-17 season. Given that Curry just won league MVP this past season, we feel comfortable in saying that the chef will reside in the same kitchen for longer than two more seasons. That may come at the expense of Thompson or Green, though, depending on when Curry gets a new deal. That’s where the issue lies for the Warriors, but it shouldn’t them from raising the Larry O’Brien Trophy again soon.