Is needing a superstar a fallacy?

[chambers]

to the point about the Pistons team that won it without a superstar. The take away from that year should be if you can be a better than average team and clever with your assets eventually you can cash in and get a title. Did Dumars think he was getting a title that year on opening night? I don't think so. We are not so far away from that Pistons team pre Sheed. just need to bring in 1 or 2 more guys and further develop a few more.

I disagree.  Ben Wallace had already made his first all star team in 2003, had won his first two dpoy awards, and had twice been named to the All-Defensive First Team, as well as the All-NBA second and third teams, respectively, while we currently have no one of that caliber.  Sigh.

TP

[Neurotic Guy]

OK, so taking the word "need" literally, i guess you don't need a superstar. But if I way were building a team with the intent of giving my team a reasonable chance to win a championship,  I'd sell my soul for a bonafide superstar.

Of all the superstar-less teams in NBA history only one won a title.  And that team was a one and done champ with a bunch of players who would be better than any current Celtics player. If any current Celtic ends up to be Chauncey , Rasheed, Ben, or even Richard Hamilton, I'd be pleased. 

 The 2004 pistons are Buster Douglas or Michael Spinks -- able to win a title in a perfect storm -- but not the blueprint you start with to build a  contender.

[GreenWarrior]

only reason this question:

"Is needing a superstar a fallacy? "

is being asked is because we don't have one.

[harrisun37]

The concept of superstar is really difficult to define.
If the Hawks, playing the way they did throughout most of the season and not last month + play-offs, had eliminated the Cavs, people would now be talking of Carroll has the new (older) Kawhi Leonard.
Superstars are the ones that get things done, and with most players you can't tell before they've done it.

TP. Very well said.