CelticsStrong
Celtics Basketball => Celtics Talk => Topic started by: CelticsQuestFor18 on February 17, 2018, 09:27:25 PM
-
The saying is, "Superstars win in this league", and honestly I think that is proving to be true nowadays.
The Cavaliers have Lebron. Warriors have Curry and Durant. Rockets have Harden. Spurs have Leonard. Those teams (including Spurs if Leonard is healthy) are understandably the teams with highest odds to win it all.
Meanwhile, Toronto is a fantastic team and DeRozan has had a fantastic year, BUT no one really considers them a true Finals threat, because DeRozan is a star but not considered a superstar.
Now that's not at all to say that teams can't win the Finals if they don't have a superstar, but the odds are definitely low, and the relative trend shows that having superstar(s) win you rings in this league (especially since 2000).
And also, I'm NOT ripping the Celtics here, as I know we are missing Hayward and have a ton of rookies and relatively new faces. But that reality is why we are struggling a bit more now and aren't considered true Finals threats at the moment. We could make ECF at best maybe according to most.
But that's also why I say, "Yet". Tatum and Brown are young and upcoming studs. Kyrie could improve and become more consistent while turning into a superstar. And who knows, maybe Hayward comes back and plays like a superstar in this system with CBS.
So patience guys! This is a young and growing team, suffering with key injuries as well, and they are still 40-19 despite having some obvious flaws. The rough stretch was honestly expected but I think this ASB will do us real well (guys simply lacked effort/hustle which looked evident from fatigue and the Smart injury).
We are definitely capable of winning Banner 18 with most of this core, and I think that could be a reality sometime in the next 1-3 years. Hopefully someone (or multiple players) grow into superstar-caliber players that can legitimately carry us going forward.
We play excellent team ball but superstars help set us apart from other elite teams, and can sometimes prove to be the difference between a team that makes a conference finals, and one that goes on to win the entire thing.
-
One superstar would do it, I think.
-
Rockets haven't won anything yet. "Superstar" thing can be taken out of context. You have perennial losers like Chris Paul, Blake Griffin and James Harden who haven't even reached the Finals.
There's no guarantee you will win with superstars either. Talent, chemistry and luck comes all together to build a championship team. We have seen a collection of talents that didn't mesh well because of poor chemistry.
-
Kyrie is our superstar. He’s as good as Curry, IMO. If they were switched, GSW would still be a contender.
-
Curry is a system Superstar. I don't think he will succeed on other system, especially ones that relies too much on iso-ball or doesn't cover up his defensive deficiencies.
-
Curry is a system Superstar. I don't think he will succeed on other system, especially ones that relies too much on iso-ball or doesn't cover up his defensive deficiencies.
Was he a system superstar in Cleveland last year when he played in Cleveland averaging 25 PPG and being a massive reason why Cleveland cruised in the playooffs to thr Finals? I didn't know Cleveland's "system"was so great.
-
Curry is a system Superstar. I don't think he will succeed on other system, especially ones that relies too much on iso-ball or doesn't cover up his defensive deficiencies.
Was he a system superstar in Cleveland last year when he played in Cleveland averaging 25 PPG and being a massive reason why Cleveland cruised in the playooffs to thr Finals? I didn't know Cleveland's "system"was so great.
Are we confusing Kyrie and Curry?
-
Curry is a system Superstar. I don't think he will succeed on other system, especially ones that relies too much on iso-ball or doesn't cover up his defensive deficiencies.
Was he a system superstar in Cleveland last year when he played in Cleveland averaging 25 PPG and being a massive reason why Cleveland cruised in the playooffs to thr Finals? I didn't know Cleveland's "system"was so great.
Yes. He can average as many PPG as he want but if it wasn't for Steve Kerr's system, they'd still be a 2nd round fodder. And I clearly said, superstar not role player. Curry needs to have a right system to be relied on a championship team.
Cavs have Lebron. He'd plug anywhere because of his sheer talent alone even with a terrible coaching and system. But you have to run 90% of plays on him.
Curry is a talented player, but he's not a guy that can just easily transform a lottery team to a contender.
-
Do championship teams make superstars, or do superstars make championship teams?
-
Superstar is plan A. I think Kyrie can be/is that guy, and Danny's parting with the pick is part of the evidence to me. He's the guy you want Hayward and Horford around.
Then there's the Pistons plan: very good players, great fit and coach. This is how very good, but not great players get max or near deals: filling out these teams.
This season was a wash on day 1; now I wonder if Horford will still have juice next year, Hayward will be 100%, Smart stays or goes, Moose resigns, and Brown/Tatum are playoff ready for next season.
But I don't wonder whether or not we have a superstar. Kyrie is the real deal.
-
Curry is a system Superstar. I don't think he will succeed on other system, especially ones that relies too much on iso-ball or doesn't cover up his defensive deficiencies.
Was he a system superstar in Cleveland last year when he played in Cleveland averaging 25 PPG and being a massive reason why Cleveland cruised in the playooffs to thr Finals? I didn't know Cleveland's "system"was so great.
Are we confusing Kyrie and Curry?
Yes I am. My bad. LOL.
-
The saying is, "Superstars win in this league", and honestly I think that is proving to be true nowadays.
Doh!
What about this guy?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORqiqbJYl0w
Yep, that is right Kyrie has done the very thing that the OP has claimed.
-
Do championship teams make superstars, or do superstars make championship teams?
That's a deep thought.
I'd say championship teams elevate stars (better overall surroundings), while superstars elevate championship teams.
-
Do championship teams make superstars, or do superstars make championship teams?
I think this is a valid question; I have always been surprised by analysts' suggestion that a player like Draymond Green is a top 20 or top 15 player in the league given how well he fits in to the system he plays for. I know I am not the first person to question whether or not a player of his caliber would thrive similarly in a different context, but his rise to stardom is one I would attribute to being part of a championship team. I guess a secondary question would be, 'are top 20 players considered superstars?'. I would think so, but the top 5 or 6 players in the league tend to be on another level of greatness in comparison.
As far as what the Celtics are working with, I believe that Kyrie is technically one of those "superstar" players considering his ability to close out games and win when it counts. His production is also fairly consistent and he scores well and efficiently (24 PPG is hard to top). I suppose my issue with Kyrie is that he is less of a playmaker than I envisioned him to be, especially after transitioning to Stevens system without a ball dominant player like Lebron. I think that there is another level of greatness that Kyrie could achieve if he were to improve in different areas of his game, because I think it would be absurd to expect him to take an additional leap in scoring. If he improves his defense or playmaking ability as a lead guard, I may consider him in that tier along with the ten or so players that are certainly better than he is currently.
I will say that I thought Hayward was on his way to becoming a top-tier talent after the season he had last year. He elevated his game as a defender and became an efficient and reliable 20 point scorer, and could shoulder the load of a pretty talentless Utah Jazz team. Like Kyrie, he performed in the playoffs and carried them about as far as they could go given the suboptimal talent he was working with. However, I am reserved in believing that Hayward can continue his improvement after suffering such a drastic injury.
-
Do championship teams make superstars, or do superstars make championship teams?
That's a deep thought.
I'd say championship teams elevate stars (better overall surroundings), while superstars elevate championship teams.
I like this idea, but the line between stars and superstars is often pretty blurry. For instance, I personally think Ginobli elevated the Spurs more than they elevated him. Does that mean Manu Ginobli is a superstar? I probably wouldn't put him in that category, but he is near the top of my list of players who I'd want to have on my team in a championship game.
This is where I think we have to stop viewing players a static commodity with static abilities (ala NBA 2k ratings). Revisionist history almost always changes the narrative about players after a championship, but they were the same players before or after.
-
Do championship teams make superstars, or do superstars make championship teams?
That's a deep thought.
I'd say championship teams elevate stars (better overall surroundings), while superstars elevate championship teams.
I like this idea, but the line between stars and superstars is often pretty blurry. For instance, I personally think Ginobli elevated the Spurs more than they elevated him. Does that mean Manu Ginobli is a superstar? I probably wouldn't put him in that category, but he is near the top of my list of players who I'd want to have on my team in a championship game.
This is where I think we have to stop viewing players a static commodity with static abilities (ala NBA 2k ratings). Revisionist history almost always changes the narrative about players after a championship, but they were the same players before or after.
Yeah truthfully it's a complicated but interesting thought process.
Either way, I'm glad we had Isaiah last year and Kyrie now + going forward (hopefully) ;D
-
Rockets haven't won anything yet. "Superstar" thing can be taken out of context. You have perennial losers like Chris Paul, Blake Griffin and James Harden who haven't even reached the Finals.
There's no guarantee you will win with superstars either. Talent, chemistry and luck comes all together to build a championship team. We have seen a collection of talents that didn't mesh well because of poor chemistry.
You're right, but the odds are pretty low that you win without a superstar.
Not impossible but especially nowadays it's pretty low.
-
Counterpoint: you become a star through winning. Steph Curry was not a superstar until GS won the championship (the season prior was his first All Star appearance and GS was only sixth in the west). Kawhi wasn't even an All Star the year he won finals MVP.
And as mr. dee pointed out previously in this thread, there are plenty of perennial All Stars who haven't played in a finals series.
I think it's as simple as having talented players who are capable of being great when it counts, and a great coach to get them there. We have Kyrie (and next year, Hayward) for the former, and we have Brad Stevens for the latter. The rest is execution and a complementary roster.
-
Kyrie Irving is the starting pg for the 'East'/Lebron's team in the NBA All Star game.
That's pretty much 'superstar' level at age 26 in my opinion.
Our superstar hasn't yet reached his prime, and is playing without much help on the offensive end other than Al Horford.
In the 2017 playoffs he averaged 26 points, 5 assists, 1 steal, 3 rebounds and in the 2017 finals he averaged 29.4 points, 4 assists, 4.4 rebounds and 1 steal.
To me, those stats cement his place as a superstar in the NBA at 26 years old.
-
I like how OP mentions Rockets have Harden but can’t credit Irving.
Harden is a LOSER. Nothing about his past says otherwise and come May, we will be saying the same thing.
Irving is a champion. He was an integral part of three Finals teams and hit the shot to win game 7. There’s a good chance Cleveland wins in 2015 if he plays.
I don’t see how Irving isn’t a superstar. That’s like saying Durant isn’t.
-
Eyeroll emoji.
-
I like how OP mentions Rockets have Harden but can’t credit Irving.
Harden is a LOSER. Nothing about his past says otherwise and come May, we will be saying the same thing.
Irving is a champion. He was an integral part of three Finals teams and hit the shot to win game 7. There’s a good chance Cleveland wins in 2015 if he plays.
I don’t see how Irving isn’t a superstar. That’s like saying Durant isn’t.
Harden has finished 2nd in MVP votes twice. Irving has never recieved a single MVP vote (I think). Irving has made the All-NBA 3rd team 1 time, Harden's made the first team 3 times and the third team once.
Harden is superior to Irving by every statistical measure I can think of as well.
-
I like how OP mentions Rockets have Harden but can’t credit Irving.
Harden is a LOSER. Nothing about his past says otherwise and come May, we will be saying the same thing.
Irving is a champion. He was an integral part of three Finals teams and hit the shot to win game 7. There’s a good chance Cleveland wins in 2015 if he plays.
I don’t see how Irving isn’t a superstar. That’s like saying Durant isn’t.
Harden has finished 2nd in MVP votes twice. Irving has never recieved a single MVP vote (I think). Irving has made the All-NBA 3rd team 1 time, Harden's made the first team 3 times and the third team once.
Harden is superior to Irving by every statistical measure I can think of as well.
Right. I am not positive that Kyrie is better than Harden at anything, including defense, which is saying something.
-
Do All Star Votes correlate to Super Star Status?
-
A couple of sidebar thoughts on Kyrie vs Harden
Kyrie's Game 7 shot was obviously huge, but I all I remember about the end of that game was that that was the only shot hit by either team for the Final 4:39. Total choke job by both sides.
04:39
[GSW 89-89] K Thompson Driving Layup Shot: Made (14 PTS) Assist: Green (9 AST)
James Jump Shot: Missed 04:14
04:13 Green Rebound (Off:1 Def:11)
04:06 Curry 3pt Shot: Missed
Jefferson Rebound (Off:1 Def:8) 04:04
James Fadeaway Jump Shot: Missed 03:41
03:40 Team Rebound
03:40 Ezeli Substitution replaced by Barnes
Jefferson Substitution replaced by Love 03:40
03:22 K Thompson Turnaround Fadeaway shot: Missed
Love Rebound (Off:4 Def:9) 03:21
James Layup Shot: Missed Block: Iguodala (1 BLK) 03:00
02:59 Green Rebound (Off:1 Def:12)
02:50 Iguodala 3pt Shot: Missed
James Rebound (Off:1 Def:9) 02:50
02:50 Curry Foul: Personal (4 PF) (D Crawford)
02:50
Love Hook Shot: Missed 02:32
02:32 Green Rebound (Off:1 Def:13)
02:13 Green 3pt Shot: Missed
Team Rebound 02:12
Irving Jump Shot: Missed 01:55
01:55 Iguodala Rebound (Off:2 Def:7)
01:50 Iguodala Layup Shot: Missed Block: James (3 BLK)
Smith Rebound (Off:0 Def:4) 01:49
James Jump Shot: Missed 01:25
01:24 Green Rebound (Off:1 Def:14)
01:14 Curry 3pt Shot: Missed
Love Rebound (Off:4 Def:10) 01:13
Team Timeout : Regular 01:09
Thompson Substitution replaced by Jefferson 01:09
Irving 3pt Shot: Made (26 PTS) 00:53.0
[CLE 92-89]
00:30.7 Curry 3pt Shot: Missed
James Rebound (Off:1 Def:10) 00:29.7
Irving Layup Shot: Missed Block: Iguodala (2 BLK) 00:22.9
Irving Rebound (Off:3 Def:3) 00:21.9
00:18.7 Barnes Foul: Personal (4 PF) (M Callahan)
00:10.6 Green Foul: Shooting (3 PF) (2 FTA) (D Crawford)
Team Timeout : Short 00:10.6
James Free Throw 1 of 2 Missed 00:10.6
Team Rebound 00:10.6
Love Substitution replaced by Thompson 00:10.6
James Free Throw 2 of 2 (27 PTS) 00:10.6
[CLE 93-89]
00:10.6 Team Timeout : Short
00:10.6 Barnes Substitution replaced by Speights
Jefferson Substitution replaced by Shumpert 00:10.6
Thompson Foul: Personal (4 PF) (D Crawford) 00:06.5
00:01.8 Curry 3pt Shot: Missed
00:01.7 Speights Rebound (Off:2 Def:2)
00:00.5 Speights 3pt Shot: Missed
00:00.0 Team Rebound
END OF 4TH QUARTER
As for Harden he needs to get past the occasional "quitter" mode - most glaringly vs Spurs in Game 7 last year. Really pathetic. We've seen it against the Celtics a couple of times too (got McHale fired a couple of years back and earlier this season taking ridiculous offensive foul bait from Smart...) The guy is hugely talented, but needs to figure out the "winner" thing.
Kyrie has been there and been successful. Time for Harden to step up.
-
I like how OP mentions Rockets have Harden but can’t credit Irving.
Harden is a LOSER. Nothing about his past says otherwise and come May, we will be saying the same thing.
Irving is a champion. He was an integral part of three Finals teams and hit the shot to win game 7. There’s a good chance Cleveland wins in 2015 if he plays.
I don’t see how Irving isn’t a superstar. That’s like saying Durant isn’t.
Harden has finished 2nd in MVP votes twice. Irving has never recieved a single MVP vote (I think). Irving has made the All-NBA 3rd team 1 time, Harden's made the first team 3 times and the third team once.
Harden is superior to Irving by every statistical measure I can think of as well.
Right. I am not positive that Kyrie is better than Harden at anything, including defense, which is saying something.
Yeah I love Kyrie, but Harden > Kyrie, and you can make the case Harden is actually a Top-5 player in this league, or at least somewhere in the Top-7 (as a given, no doubts).
-
Some of these guys like James Harden made a leap in their game from Irving’s age now to where they are now. So even if it’s debatable if Irving is a superstar now I feel confident in a couple years he’ll cement his status as a superstar especially as some of these older guys like Harden start to tail off.
-
I like how OP mentions Rockets have Harden but can’t credit Irving.
Harden is a LOSER. Nothing about his past says otherwise and come May, we will be saying the same thing.
Irving is a champion. He was an integral part of three Finals teams and hit the shot to win game 7. There’s a good chance Cleveland wins in 2015 if he plays.
I don’t see how Irving isn’t a superstar. That’s like saying Durant isn’t.
Harden has finished 2nd in MVP votes twice. Irving has never recieved a single MVP vote (I think). Irving has made the All-NBA 3rd team 1 time, Harden's made the first team 3 times and the third team once.
Harden is superior to Irving by every statistical measure I can think of as well.
Right. I am not positive that Kyrie is better than Harden at anything, including defense, which is saying something.
Yeah I love Kyrie, but Harden > Kyrie, and you can make the case Harden is actually a Top-5 player in this league, or at least somewhere in the Top-7 (as a given, no doubts).
I say Harden is Top-5, though probably at #5. He is a legitimate MVP candidate right now, and the favorite to win it this year for sure.
What gives HOU a better chance this year than in year's past is that they have CP3 as well, and it's working between Harden-CP3. CP3 can facilitate while Harden does his thing, and as long as they hit their shots, they are good. But Harden is still a huge part of the Rockets' success, but yeah I agree with above posters that he'll have to elevate his game a bit more in the playoffs.
-
Do All Star Votes correlate to Super Star Status?
According to some definitions of the word Super Star.
Absolutely. The term can mean so many different things, Im really not sure how valuable it is.
-
Do All Star Votes correlate to Super Star Status?
Idk, lets ask Zaza Pachulia after last year :P
-
Starting next season assuming a healthy Hayward and further development out of Brown and Tatum the Cs have the talent to be a championship level team. The issue is that the Warriors have raised the bar on winning a championship.
Anthony Davis dreams aside I think the Cs will be in a position to ride things out and let the Warriors age themselves for a few seasons.
In two years
Irving 27 Curry 31
Brown 23 Thompson 30
Hayward 29 Iquodala 36
Tatum 21 Durant 31
Horford 33 Green 29
As for the Superstar debate I 100% believe that Irving can be the best player on a championship team. Look at the 2014 Spurs their best player that year was Tony Parker. They still had Tim Duncan but at that point he was 37 years old and they had Leonard but he was a 22 year old 13ppg player.
-
Rockets haven't won anything yet. "Superstar" thing can be taken out of context. You have perennial losers like Chris Paul, Blake Griffin and James Harden who haven't even reached the Finals.
There's no guarantee you will win with superstars either. Talent, chemistry and luck comes all together to build a championship team. We have seen a collection of talents that didn't mesh well because of poor chemistry.
To be fair James Harden has played in the Finals when he was in OKC. They then let him go and they didn't get back to the Finals without him, so maybe he was more important to that team then people want to admit. Harden also led the Rockets back from 3-1 down to make the WCF (they lost to GS). He has also been in the playoffs every single season he has been in the league (something very few players ever can claim after 8 full seasons). Harden has obviously had some very poor showings in the playoffs, but he has also played like a man possessed at times as well.
-
Rockets haven't won anything yet. "Superstar" thing can be taken out of context. You have perennial losers like Chris Paul, Blake Griffin and James Harden who haven't even reached the Finals.
There's no guarantee you will win with superstars either. Talent, chemistry and luck comes all together to build a championship team. We have seen a collection of talents that didn't mesh well because of poor chemistry.
To be fair James Harden has played in the Finals when he was in OKC. They then let him go and they didn't get back to the Finals without him, so maybe he was more important to that team then people want to admit. Harden also led the Rockets back from 3-1 down to make the WCF (they lost to GS). He has also been in the playoffs every single season he has been in the league (something very few players ever can claim after 8 full seasons). Harden has obviously had some very poor showings in the playoffs, but he has also played like a man possessed at times as well.
Yeah, I never really understand all these people saying Harden is overrated and a "loser".
Yes, I too get frustrated when he plays against us and flops like 20 times a game, but the guy is definitely talented and is an MVP front runner for a reason right now. He probably could have had 2 more MVPs by now but Curry and Westbrook had better stats/seasons/accolades than Harden in those particular years.
And Harden's defense is still pretty mediocre, but it's actually improved from like 2-3 years ago. Sort of like Kyrie who isn't great at defense but has elevated his impact there as a whole (though I'd consider Kyrie a slightly better defender/disrupter on defense than Harden for sure, even despite the rough stretch the C's had lately).
-
Kyrie can be that superstar guy. He has already won a championship. But he still needs more talent around him. You need a minimum of a big 3 to contend. Kyrie plus Horford isn't enough to get to the next level.
Fortunately, we will get Hayward back next year. Plus if we make a big trade and add a Kawhi Leonard or an Anthony Davis, we get instantly vaulted into contender status with as talented a big 4 as you will see in this league.
-
Starting next season assuming a healthy Hayward and further development out of Brown and Tatum the Cs have the talent to be a championship level team. The issue is that the Warriors have raised the bar on winning a championship.
Anthony Davis dreams aside I think the Cs will be in a position to ride things out and let the Warriors age themselves for a few seasons.
In two years
Irving 27 28 Curry 31
Brown 23 Thompson 30
Hayward 29 Iquodala 36
Tatum 21 Durant 31
Horford 33 Green 29
As for the Superstar debate I 100% believe that Irving can be the best player on a championship team. Look at the 2014 Spurs their best player that year was Tony Parker. They still had Tim Duncan but at that point he was 37 years old and they had Leonard but he was a 22 year old 13ppg player.
I think you were trying to make the point that by then, GSW will be old and the C's will still be in their primes. Unfortunately, I don't think that is very convincing. Take Iggy out and the GSW are still in their primes in two years. Therefore I interpret this as they continue to dominate for the next 3 years.
-
Kyrie can be that superstar guy. He has already won a championship. But he still needs more talent around him. You need a minimum of a big 3 to contend. Kyrie plus Horford isn't enough to get to the next level.
Fortunately, we will get Hayward back next year. Plus if we make a big trade and add a Kawhi Leonard or an Anthony Davis, we get instantly vaulted into contender status with as talented a big 4 as you will see in this league.
It would be a matter of how Ainge rounds out this bench, if you assume multiple guys leave in FA or get traded to acquire said star player.
-
Its a semantics issue. Is a superstar a top 5, 10, 15, 25 or 50 player?
I think a superstar is a top 5 player. Otherwise, what rank is in between superstar and MVP? So no, Kyrie isn't a superstar under this definition. Change the definition and Kyrie can be whatever you want him to be.
In this Golden State era, Kyrie is good enough to be the best player on a championship team, but only if that team is stacked with 4+ other top 50 players, in my opinion.
-
Kyrie is a superstar.
He's 10th in the league in scoring is one of the leagues most clutch players with championship experience who has not hit his prime yet.
Kyrie is a superstar... what is OP's argument against?
-
I've always thought that superstars are anointed when they win. After our 2019 championship Brown, Tatum, Irving and Hayward will be considered superstars.
-
I've always thought that superstars are anointed when they win. After our 2019 championship Brown, Tatum, Irving and Hayward will be considered superstars.
How dare you leave Yabusele and Nader out of this!! >:(
:laugh:
-
I'm not so sure - regarding the thread title.
Our Big Three of 2007-08 had perhaps ONE Superstar and that was KG - at 31 years of age and even THEN starting to decline some...
Was he even a top 5 player then? Arguably, I guess.
I'm certain that we can place Kyrie Irving in that vein of Superstardom - hard to argue against him being top 10 in this league right now.
I wouldn't count out THIS team (with Marcus Smart back) and Kyrie and Horford healthy going on a DEEP run into June. CLE - while better I suppose - is NOT a lock to beat us.
Toss in GTime (God I hope he comes back THIS season) and our shot increases considerably - even against GSW.
I'm not counting on GTime coming back but even NOW the team that beat DET last night can make a series vs GSW or CLE "VERY" dirty - as in make them "WORK" for it.
I'm not counting out THIS year's team and certainly not counting out NEXT year's team (with GTime), as far as winning a title.
Teams that commit to DEFENSE wins titles and as far as Offense I think we're a lot more dynamic now.
-
Do championship teams make superstars, or do superstars make championship teams?
Depends. Curry became a superstar because of championship. Lebron and huge stat guys are already deemed superstars, but they don't guarantee champioships. Being the best player in the world does that for a team.
-
It is arbitrary. The league is marketing players. 'Stars' just is a label for great players. Superstar is isolating out the best of the best. The formula isn't we need superstars. The best combination of players is a general idea. The superstar win rings narrative makes sense, especially since the media and league want them in the big games (revenue booster). It is hiding the teams like the 2014 Spurs, 2008 Celtics, 2004 Pistons. These teams had all-stars, but not the best players in the league. All-star is just another name for success full player. Overall, superstar or stars and championship end up hand in hand because you need talented players
-
It is arbitrary. The league is marketing players. 'Stars' just is a label for great players. Superstar is isolating out the best of the best. The formula isn't we need superstars. The best combination of players is a general idea. The superstar win rings narrative makes sense, especially since the media and league want them in the big games (revenue booster). It is hiding the teams like the 2014 Spurs, 2008 Celtics, 2004 Pistons. These teams had all-stars, but not the best players in the league. All-star is just another name for success full player. Overall, superstar or stars and championship end up hand in hand because you need talented players
The 2008 Celtics absolutely had some of the best players in the league. Garnett was top five (at worst) at the time. Pierce was in his prime. Ray was a lethal SG.
So did the 2014 Spurs. I think people forget just how dominant Duncan was even at that point. You can make a legitimate argument he was still a top five player in the league even at that stage of his career, and he certainly dominated those finals (should have been Finals MVP; no disrespect to Kawhi).
The 2004 Pistons may not have had any "superstars," but to pretend that that team wasn't absolutely loaded (Sheed, Big Ben, Billups, Hamilton, Prince and a deep bench) is hyperbolic.
-
Thanks for all the responses so far guys!
First off, I agree with the posters above that yes, superstar is an arbitrary term, but that doesn't change the narrative that's put out there, and I tend to believe that it's true that superstars win in this league.
It's not impossible, as the 2004 Pistons showed us, but the odds are low of winning a championship without one.
It's probably why Ainge took a look in the mirror and made all the moves he did. Not just trading Isaiah, but basically creating a whole new, deep roster with 4 returning guys. I think the Celtics FB Page even posted an article saying "Superstars win in this league, and Kyrie is one".
Here's that link: http://www.nba.com/celtics/irving-superstar-and-superstars-win-titles
Again, I think Kyrie can become a superstar in the coming years, but right now, he's just close to being one (legitimate all-star, fringe superstar). I still love him though and enjoy watching him play.