One is the lonliest number

No one has enjoyed watching the dethroning of King James and his band of Cavaliers at the hands of the oft-written-off Orlando Magic in the Eastern Conference Finals more than I have. I typically try to be as objective as possible when I watch games, but I find myself rooting for the Magic. Part of it may be an ongoing debate with my roommate, who said that the Magic weren't legit, while I tapped them as my dark horse. The talk always focused on Cleveland and Boston, and rightly so, but I feel that the Magic were unfairly written off after the injury to Jameer Nelson earlier in the season just before the trade deadline.

The other part of this series is that I am very intrigued by is a paradigm shift that seems to defy what the pundits have said for about fifteen years. Ever since Jordan won those six championships the NBA has become a “stars' league.” Every single team in the league is bent on building up excesses of salary cap space so that they can lure a LeBron James or a Kobe Bryant or a Dwyane Wade to their team with a max contract.

But is that really the way that teams should approach constructing their teams? Is offering top-tier players max contracts and eating up salary space the best way to win? Well, let's take a look at recent history, post-Michael.

The San Antonio Spurs have had Tim Duncan, but they have always had a solid supporting cast around him, whether it be Sean Elliot and David Robinson or Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili, who could all be perennial all-stars. The focus of that team was not simply Duncan, but team basketball in which everyone was involved.

The Lakers may be a semi-exception, as they acquired Shaq just before they went on their run, but they had a very solid team. Derek Fisher, Rick Fox and Robert Horry were all very capable players in their own rights. But the difference is that they built their team around two players – Kobe and Shaq. They had a combo that was tough to counter.

The team that upended the Lakers – the Pistons – were the antithesis to the star power theory. They had no real superstars or big-time players, just a nice collection of players that were dedicated to a common goal – defense and winning.

The Miami Heat were configured very similarly to the Lakers, with Kobe being substituted for Dwyane Wade alongside Shaq. They had two players that teams had to deal with that could kill them on any given night.

The Celtics of just one year ago had three players – Garnett, Allen and Pierce – that could light it up and torch a team. In addition, they had a cast of solid role players.

So it is through that lens that I view the current situation in this year's playoffs. If we take past precedents into consideration, Cleveland is the least like the teams that were mentioned above. Outside of LeBron, there is not a consistent threat on the floor. Mo Williams has his moments, but he has been disappointing to say the least during the Conference Finals. Delonte West is in the same boat. Despite LeBron averaging numbers that no human being should average over a number of games, he just doesn't have any support from his mates. Sure, last night he finally got some help and the Cvs won, but that was the first time this series that multiplie players outside of LeBron have put up decent numbers.

Looking at Orlando and Denver and Los Angeles, however, those teams are built for championships. Each of them have undisputed team leaders – Dwight Howard, Carmelo Anthony and Kobe Bryant, respectively – solid support players – Rashard Lewis/Hedo Turkeglo, Chauncey Billups and Pau Gasol/Andrew Bynum/Lamar Odom, respectively – and solid role players. If one of these teams has an off night from one of their players, there are more than enough adept players to pick up the slack. That just isn't the case with the Cavs.

Perhaps that is why the Cavs are the team that has the longest shot to get to the Finals.

Think I made some great points? Did I say something that you disagree with? Anything that you think I missed? Let me know: comment below.