Amidst all this trade talk, I think we are forgetting something.

[BballTim]

CP3 might be a better player, but Rondo is a better Pg if that makes sense. With this team you don't need to worry about how many shots the Big 3 are going to get, because he gets them the shots he needs.

 He also isn't worried about ticking on of them off if he doesn't go to them when they call for it when he sees some thing else. Could CP3 do that?

 Rondos only real weakness is FT shooting. And even then I think its in his head. He can shoot,50% isn't too bad, its just he really dosen't do it often, and at 50% only shooting it 10 times a game is pretty good. CP3 scores 18 a game and probably shoots 8 to 10 times more.

 Funny how people also say he wouldn't be the point guard he is with out the good shooting of the 3. True, but he has to get them the ball at the right spot at the right time. Some of those pass's are insane, proably top three passing with his off hand next to Kidd, and Nash.

So if its just a srub team I'd take CP3. But a team with some talent, Rondo is the choice...

Our offense has been getting worse and worse as time goes on (sans those few games with Shaq early last year). His "playmaking abilities" are overrated IMO. Flashy and fun to watch for sure, but it's hard to ignore that we are a rather underwhelming offensive team despite three 20,000-point scorers who compliment each other almost perfectly. Rondo has to be held accountable for that more than he is.

  The main reason our offense is getting worse is a lack of offensive rebounding. You can only blame Rondo so much for that. In 07-08 our eFG% was 52.4, last year it was 51.9. In 07-08 our TS% was 56.9, last year it was 56.1. Rondo's "playmaking abilities" are why our offense scores almost as efficiently as it did when the big three were much more dominant offensive players.

You have argued against yourself. If Rondo's play making abilities are what keeps us scoring as efficiently as we did in 07-08 ( the year which when we needed crunch time scoring doc invariably put the ball in PP's hands to run point forward and add a shooter to the floor i.e. rondo getting bench for the greatest comeback in NBA finals history or  handing the controls to PP to bring us back from down double digits and ice game 6 ECF in detroit) then what happens to Rondo's "play making ability" at the end of games?

If it is his court sense, vision and greatness that is keeping these old men viable - why would it disappear and leave our offense inept during the most important time of any close game?

If it is his share genius on the court scoring our points, should it be easier to produce the desired outcome at the point in the game where he is basically not guarded?
 

  First of all, while our offense may be "inept" at the end of close games, it was similarly "inept" in 07-08. Our scoring in clutch situations (from 82games) was a little better this year. In 07-08 we were 7-6 in games with a margin of 3 points or less, last year we were 8-8 in such games, so little difference there.

  In any case, Rondo doesn't produce a ton of points at the end of close games because he doesn't handle the ball much because of his free throw shooting. But when he does handle it he's effective, leading the nba in assists/48 in clutch play (with an assist/turnover ration better than 4/1) despite not handling the ball as much as usual.

[BballTim]

CP3 might be a better player, but Rondo is a better Pg if that makes sense. With this team you don't need to worry about how many shots the Big 3 are going to get, because he gets them the shots he needs.

 He also isn't worried about ticking on of them off if he doesn't go to them when they call for it when he sees some thing else. Could CP3 do that?

 Rondos only real weakness is FT shooting. And even then I think its in his head. He can shoot,50% isn't too bad, its just he really dosen't do it often, and at 50% only shooting it 10 times a game is pretty good. CP3 scores 18 a game and probably shoots 8 to 10 times more.

 Funny how people also say he wouldn't be the point guard he is with out the good shooting of the 3. True, but he has to get them the ball at the right spot at the right time. Some of those pass's are insane, proably top three passing with his off hand next to Kidd, and Nash.

So if its just a srub team I'd take CP3. But a team with some talent, Rondo is the choice...

Our offense has been getting worse and worse as time goes on (sans those few games with Shaq early last year). His "playmaking abilities" are overrated IMO. Flashy and fun to watch for sure, but it's hard to ignore that we are a rather underwhelming offensive team despite three 20,000-point scorers who compliment each other almost perfectly. Rondo has to be held accountable for that more than he is.

  The main reason our offense is getting worse is a lack of offensive rebounding. You can only blame Rondo so much for that. In 07-08 our eFG% was 52.4, last year it was 51.9. In 07-08 our TS% was 56.9, last year it was 56.1. Rondo's "playmaking abilities" are why our offense scores almost as efficiently as it did when the big three were much more dominant offensive players.

I think when superstars and hall of famers play with each other, by default their games are going to get more efficient compared to when they play solo.

I am not discounting what Rondo means to our team, but I see as we give the keys to him more and more to let him drive this train....yes his assists go up, but our offense as a whole has been dropping since 08-09.

My main point is that when we put so much more emphasis on one guy and that emphasis takes away from our 3 main cogs, well that doesn't benefit the overall in a positive way.

07-08 BOS OFF was 10th ranked - USG% Big 3 = 71.9 (Rondo's APG: 5.1)

08-09 BOS OFF was 6th ranked - USG% Big 3 = 69.6 (Rondo APG: 8.2)

09-10 BOS OFF was 15th ranked - USG% Big 3 = 66.1 (Rondo APG: 9.

10-11 BOS OFF was 19th ranked - USG% Big 3 = 66.1 (Rondo APG: 11.2)

  Sure, the big three were all much more efficient in 07-08 than they were the year before on separate teams. But Paul and Ray are more efficient now than they were then (or ever) and Rondo's got a lot to do with that. And, again, the dropoff in offensive efficiency was mainly due to a lack of offensive rebounds. I don't think that's a function of Rondo controlling the ball more.

[Celtics18]

This argument is so old, it isn't even an argument it is confirmation bias pure and simple.

I have no idea what your middle rant about. Points per shot last year was CP3 1.36 vs Rondo 1.076. That is a huge disparity.

Do you see what happens to our offense in the 4th quarter of close games on a consistent basis? Do you know why that happens? Because the other team is playing 5 on 4 and outside of PP our best chance to actually draw a foul is rondo with his quickness but he wants no part of going to the foul line.

There is a reason we blew the heat out once, they blew us out once and then we lost 3 games when our O stalled out the last 3 minutes.

And game 7 in LA when the lakers just decided to leave kobe "on" rondo and at the foul line gobbling up every defensive board (bryant had 17 rebounds) and playing free safety on any curl by ray or drive by pp - why do you think those things can happen?

Rondo is a nice player but stop trying to make inane arguments about how he is better for this team than one of the best all around point guards of the best 20 years.

When you have to say, "if that makes sense" in your point about rondo's value as it relates to another player - guess what, it doesn't make sense!

Finally, someone else gets it.

TP. Excellent spot-on analysis.

wow.

carhole wins.

that's all i can say, except to add that the fourth quarter collapses are also a result of age.  the big three, when they were younger, could count on having enough energy to still rely on pure jumpshooting late in games.  now, they are old, and by the middle of the fourth quarter they're wiped.  they just don't have their legs under them the same way, so it's harder for them to keep hitting those jumpshots unless they are really feeling it.  our offense is almost entirely comprised of jumpshots (no low-post threat, no slashers), so when they stop falling, our offense crashes to a halt. 

this also falls on rondo somewhat, though, because as the only young star on our team we need him to be able to step up and take over the offense when that happens late in games, but that's just not the type of player that he is.  so it goes.

 Rondos only real weakness is FT shooting. And even then I think its in his head. He can shoot,50% isn't too bad, its just he really dosen't do it often, and at 50% only shooting it 10 times a game is pretty good. CP3 scores 18 a game and probably shoots 8 to 10 times more.

i have to comment on this specifically, though.  In no way is 50% free throws good in any context, regardless of how many shots the player takes per game.  It's bad.  Awful.  Those are supposed to be free points (get it, that's why they're called free throws), and you're throwing away 50% of those free points.  Compare Rondo's free throw percentage to all of the other guards in the league and he's got to be around dead last. 

also, how many free throws do you think players usually take per game?  only superstars take 10 free throws a game.  kevin durant takes that many free throws a game.  most players only take 2-4 at most.

Really?  Our team is almost entirely a jumpshooting team?  According to HoopsData, only four teams in the league made more field goals at the rim per game last season than the Boston Celtics. 

Your statement about us being purely a jump shooting team isn't true.  Not that jump shooting teams can't have success.  Dallas Mavericks ring a bell?

mavs have dirk, and they were also a really good rebounding team.  if you rebound well, you can get by relying on jumpshots because you get a lot of second chances.

as for scoring inside, the celtics have no post-up threat.  they don't have somebody who can consistently take a guy 1-on-1 down low and score without having to get an open look through ball movement (which shuts down late in games because the opposing defense clamps down on the shooters).

the celtics shooters create spacing which allows for ball movement and a lot of cuts to the rim, which is where those baskets at the rim come from.  later in games, though, it's a lot harder to get those because the shots stop falling.  because the celtics aren't a great offensive rebounding team they don't get a lot of second chance opportunities inside off misses.

I agree partially with the first sentence of your last paragraph.  Good shooters, spacing, and cuts to the basket are certainly factors in us being able to score at the rim.  Of course, the player who is generally supplying the passes that find those cutters to the rim is Rondo.  He's the best I've seen at finding a guy and delivering a perfect pass to a cutter or a roller going to the rim.

Let's also not pretend that a significant amount of those shots at the rim don't come directly from Rondo's ability to drive and to find open men underneath when the defense collapses.

I'm not giving Rondo all the credit here.  Paul Pierce can still get in the lane and make passes.  Even Ray has his moments, and KG is an excellent interior passer when the defense is scrambling. We have consistently been among the best passing teams in the league over the past four years.

As to the late game collapses, watch what happened to your invincible Thunder and Heat when the going got tough in last year's playoffs and the very good Mavericks defense was able to load up their defense to stop drives into the lane by those respective team's top guys who create shots for themselves.

Also, the Mavs didn't have a consistent low post threat either unless you count Dirk as a low post threat.  For that matter, neither really do the other top contenders, the Heat, the Bulls, or the Thunder.

So what is it that a team needs to win a title?  Is it a superstar level slasher/finisher? The Mavs didn't have that.  Is it a superstar level offensive post presence? The Mavs didn't have that.  That team defied a lot of the conventional wisdom of what it takes to win an NBA title.  

Our make up is not exactly the same as last year's Mavs, but I think we do have the pieces to put together a good run at it relying on ball movement, unselfish offense, and a top notch defense rather than one guy who gets the ball in his hands and tries to win it by himself.  I don't want to be that latter style team, and I'm glad I get to root for a team that doesn't have to play that type of ball to be successful.



 

 

[PosImpos]

This argument is so old, it isn't even an argument it is confirmation bias pure and simple.

I have no idea what your middle rant about. Points per shot last year was CP3 1.36 vs Rondo 1.076. That is a huge disparity.

Do you see what happens to our offense in the 4th quarter of close games on a consistent basis? Do you know why that happens? Because the other team is playing 5 on 4 and outside of PP our best chance to actually draw a foul is rondo with his quickness but he wants no part of going to the foul line.

There is a reason we blew the heat out once, they blew us out once and then we lost 3 games when our O stalled out the last 3 minutes.

And game 7 in LA when the lakers just decided to leave kobe "on" rondo and at the foul line gobbling up every defensive board (bryant had 17 rebounds) and playing free safety on any curl by ray or drive by pp - why do you think those things can happen?

Rondo is a nice player but stop trying to make inane arguments about how he is better for this team than one of the best all around point guards of the best 20 years.

When you have to say, "if that makes sense" in your point about rondo's value as it relates to another player - guess what, it doesn't make sense!

Finally, someone else gets it.

TP. Excellent spot-on analysis.

wow.

carhole wins.

that's all i can say, except to add that the fourth quarter collapses are also a result of age.  the big three, when they were younger, could count on having enough energy to still rely on pure jumpshooting late in games.  now, they are old, and by the middle of the fourth quarter they're wiped.  they just don't have their legs under them the same way, so it's harder for them to keep hitting those jumpshots unless they are really feeling it.  our offense is almost entirely comprised of jumpshots (no low-post threat, no slashers), so when they stop falling, our offense crashes to a halt.  

this also falls on rondo somewhat, though, because as the only young star on our team we need him to be able to step up and take over the offense when that happens late in games, but that's just not the type of player that he is.  so it goes.

 Rondos only real weakness is FT shooting. And even then I think its in his head. He can shoot,50% isn't too bad, its just he really dosen't do it often, and at 50% only shooting it 10 times a game is pretty good. CP3 scores 18 a game and probably shoots 8 to 10 times more.

i have to comment on this specifically, though.  In no way is 50% free throws good in any context, regardless of how many shots the player takes per game.  It's bad.  Awful.  Those are supposed to be free points (get it, that's why they're called free throws), and you're throwing away 50% of those free points.  Compare Rondo's free throw percentage to all of the other guards in the league and he's got to be around dead last.  

also, how many free throws do you think players usually take per game?  only superstars take 10 free throws a game.  kevin durant takes that many free throws a game.  most players only take 2-4 at most.

Really?  Our team is almost entirely a jumpshooting team?  According to HoopsData, only four teams in the league made more field goals at the rim per game last season than the Boston Celtics.  

Your statement about us being purely a jump shooting team isn't true.  Not that jump shooting teams can't have success.  Dallas Mavericks ring a bell?

mavs have dirk, and they were also a really good rebounding team.  if you rebound well, you can get by relying on jumpshots because you get a lot of second chances.

as for scoring inside, the celtics have no post-up threat.  they don't have somebody who can consistently take a guy 1-on-1 down low and score without having to get an open look through ball movement (which shuts down late in games because the opposing defense clamps down on the shooters).

the celtics shooters create spacing which allows for ball movement and a lot of cuts to the rim, which is where those baskets at the rim come from.  later in games, though, it's a lot harder to get those because the shots stop falling.  because the celtics aren't a great offensive rebounding team they don't get a lot of second chance opportunities inside off misses.

I agree partially with the first sentence of your last paragraph.  Good shooters, spacing, and cuts to the basket are certainly factors in us being able to score at the rim.  Of course, the player who is generally supplying the passes that find those cutters to the rim is Rondo.  He's the best I've seen at finding a guy and delivering a perfect pass to a cutter or a roller going to the rim.

Let's also not pretend that a significant amount of those shots at the rim don't come directly from Rondo's ability to drive and to find open men underneath when the defense collapses.

I'm not giving Rondo all the credit here.  Paul Pierce can still get in the lane and make passes.  Even Ray has his moments, and KG is an excellent interior passer when the defense is scrambling. We have consistently been among the best passing teams in the league over the past four years.

As to the late game collapses, watch what happened to your invincible Thunder and Heat when the going got tough in last year's playoffs and the very good Mavericks defense was able to load up their defense to stop drives into the lane by those respective team's top guys who create shots for themselves.

Also, the Mavs didn't have a consistent low post threat either unless you count Dirk as a low post threat.  For that matter, neither really do the other top contenders, the Heat, the Bulls, or the Thunder.

So what is it that a team needs to win a title?  Is it a superstar level slasher/finisher? The Mavs didn't have that.  Is it a superstar level offensive post presence? The Mavs didn't have that.  That team defied a lot of the conventional wisdom of what it takes to win an NBA title.  

Our make up is not exactly the same as last year's Mavs, but I think we do have the pieces to put together a good run at it relying on ball movement, unselfish offense, and a top notch defense rather than one guy who gets the ball in his hands and tries to win it by himself.  I don't want to be that latter style team, and I'm glad I get to root for a team that doesn't have to play that type of ball to be successful.



 

 

dirk is a low post threat.  time and time again in the fourth quarters this past summer we saw him post up a guy and make tough fall away jumpers or pull off a spin move and get a lay in at the basket.


bottom line with the mavericks, they don't win a championship this summer if dirk didn't play better than everybody else in the post-season.  dirk was flat out unstoppable at times in the playoffs, particularly in the fourth quarter.

if you can convince me that somebody currently on the celtics is going to put on that kind of offensive performance for four series next summer, then ill be on board with the idea that the celtics don't need a balanced offense (read: inside-outside) in order to compete for a title.


by the way, a similar principle applies to the heat / thunder.  they don't have great low post scorers, but they have elite level slashers, and bottom line they just have guys who can score against any defender, at any time in the game.  you don't need a balanced offense if you have a player or players who are capable of taking over at any time.  it just so happens the heat and thunder both have two such players, and they also have very offensively talented third men (harden / bosh).

[BballTim]

This argument is so old, it isn't even an argument it is confirmation bias pure and simple.

I have no idea what your middle rant about. Points per shot last year was CP3 1.36 vs Rondo 1.076. That is a huge disparity.

Do you see what happens to our offense in the 4th quarter of close games on a consistent basis? Do you know why that happens? Because the other team is playing 5 on 4 and outside of PP our best chance to actually draw a foul is rondo with his quickness but he wants no part of going to the foul line.

There is a reason we blew the heat out once, they blew us out once and then we lost 3 games when our O stalled out the last 3 minutes.

And game 7 in LA when the lakers just decided to leave kobe "on" rondo and at the foul line gobbling up every defensive board (bryant had 17 rebounds) and playing free safety on any curl by ray or drive by pp - why do you think those things can happen?

Rondo is a nice player but stop trying to make inane arguments about how he is better for this team than one of the best all around point guards of the best 20 years.

When you have to say, "if that makes sense" in your point about rondo's value as it relates to another player - guess what, it doesn't make sense!

Finally, someone else gets it.

TP. Excellent spot-on analysis.

wow.

carhole wins.

that's all i can say, except to add that the fourth quarter collapses are also a result of age.  the big three, when they were younger, could count on having enough energy to still rely on pure jumpshooting late in games.  now, they are old, and by the middle of the fourth quarter they're wiped.  they just don't have their legs under them the same way, so it's harder for them to keep hitting those jumpshots unless they are really feeling it.  our offense is almost entirely comprised of jumpshots (no low-post threat, no slashers), so when they stop falling, our offense crashes to a halt.  

this also falls on rondo somewhat, though, because as the only young star on our team we need him to be able to step up and take over the offense when that happens late in games, but that's just not the type of player that he is.  so it goes.

 Rondos only real weakness is FT shooting. And even then I think its in his head. He can shoot,50% isn't too bad, its just he really dosen't do it often, and at 50% only shooting it 10 times a game is pretty good. CP3 scores 18 a game and probably shoots 8 to 10 times more.

i have to comment on this specifically, though.  In no way is 50% free throws good in any context, regardless of how many shots the player takes per game.  It's bad.  Awful.  Those are supposed to be free points (get it, that's why they're called free throws), and you're throwing away 50% of those free points.  Compare Rondo's free throw percentage to all of the other guards in the league and he's got to be around dead last.  

also, how many free throws do you think players usually take per game?  only superstars take 10 free throws a game.  kevin durant takes that many free throws a game.  most players only take 2-4 at most.

Really?  Our team is almost entirely a jumpshooting team?  According to HoopsData, only four teams in the league made more field goals at the rim per game last season than the Boston Celtics.  

Your statement about us being purely a jump shooting team isn't true.  Not that jump shooting teams can't have success.  Dallas Mavericks ring a bell?

mavs have dirk, and they were also a really good rebounding team.  if you rebound well, you can get by relying on jumpshots because you get a lot of second chances.

as for scoring inside, the celtics have no post-up threat.  they don't have somebody who can consistently take a guy 1-on-1 down low and score without having to get an open look through ball movement (which shuts down late in games because the opposing defense clamps down on the shooters).

the celtics shooters create spacing which allows for ball movement and a lot of cuts to the rim, which is where those baskets at the rim come from.  later in games, though, it's a lot harder to get those because the shots stop falling.  because the celtics aren't a great offensive rebounding team they don't get a lot of second chance opportunities inside off misses.

I agree partially with the first sentence of your last paragraph.  Good shooters, spacing, and cuts to the basket are certainly factors in us being able to score at the rim.  Of course, the player who is generally supplying the passes that find those cutters to the rim is Rondo.  He's the best I've seen at finding a guy and delivering a perfect pass to a cutter or a roller going to the rim.

Let's also not pretend that a significant amount of those shots at the rim don't come directly from Rondo's ability to drive and to find open men underneath when the defense collapses.

I'm not giving Rondo all the credit here.  Paul Pierce can still get in the lane and make passes.  Even Ray has his moments, and KG is an excellent interior passer when the defense is scrambling. We have consistently been among the best passing teams in the league over the past four years.

As to the late game collapses, watch what happened to your invincible Thunder and Heat when the going got tough in last year's playoffs and the very good Mavericks defense was able to load up their defense to stop drives into the lane by those respective team's top guys who create shots for themselves.

Also, the Mavs didn't have a consistent low post threat either unless you count Dirk as a low post threat.  For that matter, neither really do the other top contenders, the Heat, the Bulls, or the Thunder.

So what is it that a team needs to win a title?  Is it a superstar level slasher/finisher? The Mavs didn't have that.  Is it a superstar level offensive post presence? The Mavs didn't have that.  That team defied a lot of the conventional wisdom of what it takes to win an NBA title.  

Our make up is not exactly the same as last year's Mavs, but I think we do have the pieces to put together a good run at it relying on ball movement, unselfish offense, and a top notch defense rather than one guy who gets the ball in his hands and tries to win it by himself.  I don't want to be that latter style team, and I'm glad I get to root for a team that doesn't have to play that type of ball to be successful.



 

 

dirk is a low post threat.  time and time again in the fourth quarters this past summer we saw him post up a guy and make tough fall away jumpers or pull off a spin move and get a lay in at the basket.


bottom line with the mavericks, they don't win a championship this summer if dirk didn't play better than everybody else in the post-season.  dirk was flat out unstoppable at times in the playoffs, particularly in the fourth quarter.

if you can convince me that somebody currently on the celtics is going to put on that kind of offensive performance for four series next summer, then ill be on board with the idea that the celtics don't need a balanced offense (read: inside-outside) in order to compete for a title.


by the way, a similar principle applies to the heat / thunder.  they don't have great low post scorers, but they have elite level slashers, and bottom line they just have guys who can score against any defender, at any time in the game.  you don't need a balanced offense if you have a player or players who are capable of taking over at any time.  it just so happens the heat and thunder both have two such players, and they also have very offensively talented third men (harden / bosh).

  If the Heat had players that can score against anyone at any time they'd have won the title. You don't have to be just like the Mavs to win the title, just like the teams that won before and after the Celts weren't just like them.

[PosImpos]

  If the Heat had players that can score against anyone at any time they'd have won the title. You don't have to be just like the Mavs to win the title, just like the teams that won before and after the Celts weren't just like them.

"able to score against anyone at any time" isn't supposed to literally mean "will always score every time down the floor in every game."  rather, the players are capable of taking over a game and scoring almost at will.  it doesn't always happen, but when it does, the team is almost impossible to beat.  the heat have two guys that can do that, and at times in the finals against the mavs, they did.


but the heat came up against another team with a dominant offensive player; he was just more dominant, and his supporting cast was better.


i love how predictable these discussions are though.  


use one team as an example of a way to win, then when something about that assertion is debunked, fall back on "there are many different ways to win a title."


well, sure, but how many teams win a title without an elite offensive player who can take over a series?  inevitably, people point to the detroit pistons of 04.  okay, sure, but a lot of things had to go right for them, and they had a heck of a lot of talent on their roster, and their defense was excellent -- they had a 4 time DPOY anchoring them inside.  in any case, the '04 pistons are the exception that proves the rule.  

if you want to argue that it's possible to win a title without a dominant superstar, ill say sure, it's possible.  but really unlikely, especially in today's NBA where there are more superstars than ever and many of them are teamed up together.

[BballTim]

  If the Heat had players that can score against anyone at any time they'd have won the title. You don't have to be just like the Mavs to win the title, just like the teams that won before and after the Celts weren't just like them.

"able to score against anyone at any time" isn't supposed to literally mean "will always score every time down the floor in every game."  rather, the players are capable of taking over a game and scoring almost at will.  it doesn't always happen, but when it does, the team is almost impossible to beat.  the heat have two guys that can do that, and at times in the finals against the mavs, they did.


but the heat came up against another team with a dominant offensive player; he was just more dominant, and his supporting cast was better.


i love how predictable these discussions are though.  


use one team as an example of a way to win, then when something about that assertion is debunked, fall back on "there are many different ways to win a title."


well, sure, but how many teams win a title without an elite offensive player who can take over a series?  inevitably, people point to the detroit pistons of 04.  okay, sure, but a lot of things had to go right for them, and they had a heck of a lot of talent on their roster, and their defense was excellent -- they had a 4 time DPOY anchoring them inside.  in any case, the '04 pistons are the exception that proves the rule.  

if you want to argue that it's possible to win a title without a dominant superstar, ill say sure, it's possible.  but really unlikely, especially in today's NBA where there are more superstars than ever and many of them are teamed up together.

  Apparently "able to score against anyone at any time" isn't supposed to literally mean "can get big baskets when needed down the stretch" either. I thought these conversations were predictable in that people pick out something the Celts don't have and claim that you can't win without it based on historical trends. The Celts almost won a title in 2010 without a dominant scorer, they still have the big four, they still have the most important thing that every title team needs, a player like KG.