Is the NBA superstar winnning formula more perception than reality

[Ogaju]

There is a notion that you win with a superstar in the NBA, therefore you have championships being credited to the likes of

MJ

Olajuwon

Shaq

Tim Duncan

Dwayne Wade

Kobe Bryant

LeBron James

Even Dirk Nowitzki

Only the Celtics and Pistons of recent memory have had Championships that were not really credited to the presence of a superstar on the team, with the Pistons they get credited as a team, but with the Celtics it was more because they had 3 superstars instead of one.

I believe that the superstar model of keys to an NBA championship is more perception than reality.

Of the superstars listed above that get credit for their teams championships none of them won without a lot of help from very elite teammates.

MJ is probably the biggest beneficiary of exaggerated credit for championships because those Bulls teams were loaded with talent. At various times MJ had the likes of Pippen, Horace Grant, Dennis Rodman, Bison Daley, Tony Kukoc, Ron Harper, Paxon, and Steve Kerr.

Olajuwon, won when Jordan was out or not in shape, and he had Smith, Elie, Maxwell, and Cassell, I think Horry. Well like I said Jordan was out those years.

Shaq had Kobe, Grant, the aforementioned Ron Harper, Horry, and Phil Jackson.

Tim Duncan has David Robinson, Shawn Elliot, and Ginobili.

Dwayne Wade had Shaq Mourning and Haslem

Kobe could not do it until he got Bynumm and Gasol together with Fisher and Artest

Nowitski needed JJ Barrea, Jason Terry, Marion, Jason Kidd, He does not beat the Lakers without the lights out shooting of Terry and the penetrating plays of JJ Barrea.

We all know that LeBron by bailing to Miami admitted that he could not do it alone, and we see how the complimentary players helped him beat the Celtics last year and eventually force Spurs to a game 7 this year.

Therefore I submit that while the NBA tries to sell its league by emphasizing superstars - the Championship is still very much a TEAM achievement.

[LarBrd33]

KG was statistically the 2nd best player in the league the year before we traded for him (behind leBron) after spending close to a decade as the #1 most dominant statistical player in the league. 

He was absolutely a superstar.

It's not a myth.  Superstars win titles.  Wallace/Wallace Pistons are possibly the only abberation, but they had 4 all-stars on that team and two dominant big men.   

Superstars need talent around them, though... like LeBron in Cleveland and KG and Minny or Jordan before Pippen (pre-Pippen Jordan was statistically dominant, but the team wasn't even playing .500 ball)... you can't do it alone.  But you absolutely need a superstar to win a title.  Not all superstars win titles. Almost all titles have a superstar.

So it appears the two paths you can take to win a title.  #1 is by far the most popular (95% of title teams) and it involves building around a Superstar (which means one of the 5 best players in the league... not merely one of the 5 best SF's or 5 best PG's in the league)  ... Or path #2 is the rare Pistons instance where you can get have two dominant bigs, add two all-star scorers with a deep bench and give them a strong defensive identity.   Boston wasn't in position to do either... so they blew it up with hopes of landing a future superstar.

[chambers]

You need at least two superstars.
We had two superstars in KG and Pierce, with Allen a starting All Star on superstar level. We also had an All Star point guard in the making in Rondo. We were stacked.
Look at this list of the last 10 years of NBA finals teams and the players they got with top 5-10 picks.

examples:
Spurs: Duncan
Lakers: Kobe
Heat: Wade
Celtics: Pierce
Magic: Howard
Cavs: Lebron
Nets: Jason Kidd (one day after the draft for Marbury and the 7th pick), Kneyon Martin
Mavs: Dirk


You'll notice two things;
1) All of them drafted their own 'star' except the Pistons who got Rasheed off Portland but did get Ben Wallace before he blew up.

2)They also all had another superstar or at least 3 All Star or superstar caliber players. Most had three All Stars at least (Pistons, Celtics, Spurs, Heat). The only ones that didn't were the Magic, Cavs and the Mavericks.
Howard and the Magic and Lebron and the Cavs couldn't handle their superstar opponents in the Spurs, Celtics, Pistons or Lakers. It's why Lebron joined Wade and Bosh. People talk about the Pistons being some kind of under dog team against the Lakers but they still had 4 All stars, 3 of whom were starting All Stars.
(Billups, Rasheed, Wallace,Hamilton).
Only one without 2 all stars is Dallas I believe.

So no, it's not a perception.
It's a winning formula.

[D.o.s.]

KG was statistically the 2nd best player in the league the year before we traded for him (behind leBron) after spending close to a decade as the #1 most dominant statistical player in the league. 

He was absolutely a superstar.

It's not a myth.  Superstars win titles.  Wallace/Wallace Pistons are possibly the only abberation, but they had 4 all-stars on that team and two dominant big men.   

Superstars need talent around them, though... like LeBron in Cleveland and KG and Minny or Jordan before Pippen (pre-Pippen Jordan was statistically dominant, but the team wasn't even playing .500 ball)... you can't do it alone.  But you absolutely need a superstar to win a title. Not all superstars win titles. Almost all titles have a superstar.

So it appears the two paths you can take to win a title.  #1 is by far the most popular (95% of title teams) and it involves building around a Superstar (which means one of the 5 best players in the league... not merely one of the 5 best SF's or 5 best PG's in the league)  ... Or path #2 is the rare Pistons instance where you can get have two dominant bigs, add two all-star scorers with a deep bench and give them a strong defensive identity.   Boston wasn't in position to do either... so they blew it up with hopes of landing a future superstar.

Yus.

[Celtics18]

I think you generally need at least one superstar to win a title (the Pistons, of course, being the notable exception), but who qualifies as a superstar is highly debatable.

The best player on a championship team will qualify as a superstar by virtue of leading his team to a championship.

Is Rajon Rondo a superstar?  In most people's eyes, probably not quite.  But, if he were to be able to lead the Celtics to a title, he would clearly be considered one, thereby, doing nothing to disprove the notion that you need a superstar to win a title. 

[Ogaju]

You need at least two superstars.
We had two superstars in KG and Pierce, with Allen a starting All Star on superstar level. We also had an All Star point guard in the making in Rondo. We were stacked.
Look at this list of the last 10 years of NBA finals teams and the players they got with top 5-10 picks.

examples:
Spurs: Duncan
Lakers: Kobe
Heat: Wade
Celtics: Pierce
Magic: Howard
Cavs: Lebron
Nets: Jason Kidd (one day after the draft for Marbury and the 7th pick), Kneyon Martin
Mavs: Dirk


You'll notice two things;
1) All of them drafted their own 'star' except the Pistons who got Rasheed off Portland but did get Ben Wallace before he blew up.

2)They also all had another superstar or at least 3 All Star or superstar caliber players. Most had three All Stars at least (Pistons, Celtics, Spurs, Heat). The only ones that didn't were the Magic, Cavs and the Mavericks.
Howard and the Magic and Lebron and the Cavs couldn't handle their superstar opponents in the Spurs, Celtics, Pistons or Lakers. It's why Lebron joined Wade and Bosh. People talk about the Pistons being some kind of under dog team against the Lakers but they still had 4 All stars, 3 of whom were starting All Stars.
(Billups, Rasheed, Wallace,Hamilton).
Only one without 2 all stars is Dallas I believe.

So no, it's not a perception.
It's a winning formula.

Oh TP I agree with you about multiple superstars what I meant to say is that the one star model is a myth.

[D.o.s.]

I think you generally need at least one superstar to win a title (the Pistons, of course, being the notable exception), but who qualifies as a superstar is highly debatable.

The best player on a championship team will qualify as a superstar by virtue of leading his team to a championship.

Is Rajon Rondo a superstar?  In most people's eyes, probably not quite.  But, if he were to be able to lead the Celtics to a title, he would clearly be considered one, thereby, doing nothing to disprove the notion that you need a superstar to win a title.

Fallacy of presupposition.

What's to stop Rondo from being the next Chauncey Billups, the 2004 Finals MVP but not a superstar by your own admission?

[Celtics18]

I think you generally need at least one superstar to win a title (the Pistons, of course, being the notable exception), but who qualifies as a superstar is highly debatable.

The best player on a championship team will qualify as a superstar by virtue of leading his team to a championship.

Is Rajon Rondo a superstar?  In most people's eyes, probably not quite.  But, if he were to be able to lead the Celtics to a title, he would clearly be considered one, thereby, doing nothing to disprove the notion that you need a superstar to win a title.

Fallacy of presupposition.

What's to stop Rondo from being the next Chauncey Billups, the 2004 Finals MVP but not a superstar by your own admission?

The "You need a superstar to win a title" theory presupposes that there is an agreed upon, specific category for NBA superstars in any given year.  In reality, there isn't. 

For the theory to be at all provable, there would have to be a universally agreed upon category of players that could be defined as "superstars" in any given year.

I have never seen a comprehensive list of these players.  "Superstar" is not a concrete term with clearly definable characteristics. 

You're right.  The theory that "you need a superstar to win a title" does rely on the fallacy of presupposition. 

[D.o.s.]

I think you generally need at least one superstar to win a title (the Pistons, of course, being the notable exception), but who qualifies as a superstar is highly debatable.

The best player on a championship team will qualify as a superstar by virtue of leading his team to a championship.

Is Rajon Rondo a superstar?  In most people's eyes, probably not quite.  But, if he were to be able to lead the Celtics to a title, he would clearly be considered one, thereby, doing nothing to disprove the notion that you need a superstar to win a title.

Fallacy of presupposition.

What's to stop Rondo from being the next Chauncey Billups, the 2004 Finals MVP but not a superstar by your own admission?

The "You need a superstar to win a title" theory presupposes that there is an agreed upon, specific category for NBA superstars in any given year.  In reality, there isn't. 

For the theory to be at all provable, there would have to be a universally agreed upon category of players that could be defined as "superstars" in any given year.

I have never seen a comprehensive list of these players.  "Superstar" is not a concrete term with clearly definable characteristics. 

You're right.  The theory that "you need a superstar to win a title" does rely on the fallacy of presupposition.

I was specifically referring to this bit:

The best player on a championship team will qualify as a superstar by virtue of leading his team to a championship.

Feel free to misinterpret as you please.

[Celtics18]

I think you generally need at least one superstar to win a title (the Pistons, of course, being the notable exception), but who qualifies as a superstar is highly debatable.

The best player on a championship team will qualify as a superstar by virtue of leading his team to a championship.

Is Rajon Rondo a superstar?  In most people's eyes, probably not quite.  But, if he were to be able to lead the Celtics to a title, he would clearly be considered one, thereby, doing nothing to disprove the notion that you need a superstar to win a title.

Fallacy of presupposition.

What's to stop Rondo from being the next Chauncey Billups, the 2004 Finals MVP but not a superstar by your own admission?

The "You need a superstar to win a title" theory presupposes that there is an agreed upon, specific category for NBA superstars in any given year.  In reality, there isn't. 

For the theory to be at all provable, there would have to be a universally agreed upon category of players that could be defined as "superstars" in any given year.

I have never seen a comprehensive list of these players.  "Superstar" is not a concrete term with clearly definable characteristics. 

You're right.  The theory that "you need a superstar to win a title" does rely on the fallacy of presupposition.

I was specifically referring to this bit:

The best player on a championship team will qualify as a superstar by virtue of leading his team to a championship.

Feel free to misinterpret as you please.

Fair enough.  If I had meant that statement as representing a factual reality, you're right, it would be a fallacy.

I apologize for being misleading.  I didn't mean it to be construed as a fact.  Rather, it was my own personal prediction of something that I thought would be likely to happen. 

[Celtics18]

KG was statistically the 2nd best player in the league the year before we traded for him (behind leBron) after spending close to a decade as the #1 most dominant statistical player in the league. 

He was absolutely a superstar.

It's not a myth.  Superstars win titles.  Wallace/Wallace Pistons are possibly the only abberation, but they had 4 all-stars on that team and two dominant big men.   

Superstars need talent around them, though... like LeBron in Cleveland and KG and Minny or Jordan before Pippen (pre-Pippen Jordan was statistically dominant, but the team wasn't even playing .500 ball)... you can't do it alone.  But you absolutely need a superstar to win a title.  Not all superstars win titles. Almost all titles have a superstar.

So it appears the two paths you can take to win a title.  #1 is by far the most popular (95% of title teams) and it involves building around a Superstar (which means one of the 5 best players in the league... not merely one of the 5 best SF's or 5 best PG's in the league)  ... Or path #2 is the rare Pistons instance where you can get have two dominant bigs, add two all-star scorers with a deep bench and give them a strong defensive identity.   Boston wasn't in position to do either... so they blew it up with hopes of landing a future superstar.

I'm fairly certain based on experience that you won't answer this question, but, I'll try again just for laughs:

You have defined a "superstar" as a top five player in the league.  Could you now explain how you define who fits into the category of a top five player in the league? 

It would be helpful for the sake of this discussion. 

[D.o.s.]

I think you generally need at least one superstar to win a title (the Pistons, of course, being the notable exception), but who qualifies as a superstar is highly debatable.

The best player on a championship team will qualify as a superstar by virtue of leading his team to a championship.

Is Rajon Rondo a superstar?  In most people's eyes, probably not quite.  But, if he were to be able to lead the Celtics to a title, he would clearly be considered one, thereby, doing nothing to disprove the notion that you need a superstar to win a title.

Fallacy of presupposition.

What's to stop Rondo from being the next Chauncey Billups, the 2004 Finals MVP but not a superstar by your own admission?

The "You need a superstar to win a title" theory presupposes that there is an agreed upon, specific category for NBA superstars in any given year.  In reality, there isn't. 

For the theory to be at all provable, there would have to be a universally agreed upon category of players that could be defined as "superstars" in any given year.

I have never seen a comprehensive list of these players.  "Superstar" is not a concrete term with clearly definable characteristics. 

You're right.  The theory that "you need a superstar to win a title" does rely on the fallacy of presupposition.

I was specifically referring to this bit:

The best player on a championship team will qualify as a superstar by virtue of leading his team to a championship.

Feel free to misinterpret as you please.

Fair enough.  If I had meant that statement as representing a factual reality, you're right, it would be a fallacy.

I apologize for being misleading.  I didn't mean it to be construed as a fact.  Rather, it was my own personal prediction of something that I thought would be likely to happen.

No worries. For what it's worth, the fallacy of presupposition is a pretty well-known rhetorical device--you might remember this time last year, when David Stern asked some reporter if he'd stopped beating his wife yet.

Upon rereading, I think the statement is more clearly an example of 'affirming the consequent.' Also, it's 3:30 in the morning and I'm unable to sleep.

I do largely agree with your basic premise--that superstar status is largely conveyed on the best players on title teams, and that players who might otherwise be construed as superstars are not owing to lack of rings. I think Carmelo's a great example of that kind of player right now, I think KG in Minnesota was a good example of that kind of player in the early-to-mid 00's.

The problem, then, becomes one of other qualifying factors for Top 5/Superstar/Build Your Team Around Status.

-I'd throw 'Melo in there because he's been the best player on every team he's ever been on, and has never missed the post-season even in a loaded Western Conference.

-Durant goes in because he's the best shooter in the NBA right now, has won three scoring titles, has been the best player on a team that made the NBA Finals, and is still only 24.

-LeBron goes in for reasons that need not be rehashed again.

-Post-back surgery Dwight would go here, but I'm not convinced he's the same franchise building block he was prior.

Those are the three and a half players in the NBA right now you could surround with talent, go into the playoffs, and expect to make some noise with them as the best player on that team. Obviously, all of them have had varying degrees of playoff success that reflect how difficult it is to build a winning team in the NBA. They're the "franchise players" of the moment.

On a rack below them, due to age or injury or both, are the Rondo's, the Westbrooks, the Wades, the Kobes, the Duncans. Guys who you could probably build a contender around, or guys who were formerly franchise players who're adjusting their games to being the second banana on a winning team.

Below those guys are the prospects: The Irvings, The Curry's, the John Walls, the Aldrige's, the Hardens.
Jury still being out on their successes as franchise centerpieces due to a conflux of new anointment, injury, front office/team mismanagement, etc.

[LarBrd33]

KG was statistically the 2nd best player in the league the year before we traded for him (behind leBron) after spending close to a decade as the #1 most dominant statistical player in the league. 

He was absolutely a superstar.

It's not a myth.  Superstars win titles.  Wallace/Wallace Pistons are possibly the only abberation, but they had 4 all-stars on that team and two dominant big men.   

Superstars need talent around them, though... like LeBron in Cleveland and KG and Minny or Jordan before Pippen (pre-Pippen Jordan was statistically dominant, but the team wasn't even playing .500 ball)... you can't do it alone.  But you absolutely need a superstar to win a title.  Not all superstars win titles. Almost all titles have a superstar.

So it appears the two paths you can take to win a title.  #1 is by far the most popular (95% of title teams) and it involves building around a Superstar (which means one of the 5 best players in the league... not merely one of the 5 best SF's or 5 best PG's in the league)  ... Or path #2 is the rare Pistons instance where you can get have two dominant bigs, add two all-star scorers with a deep bench and give them a strong defensive identity.   Boston wasn't in position to do either... so they blew it up with hopes of landing a future superstar.

I'm fairly certain based on experience that you won't answer this question, but, I'll try again just for laughs:

You have defined a "superstar" as a top five player in the league.  Could you now explain how you define who fits into the category of a top five player in the league? 

It would be helpful for the sake of this discussion.

I'm not saying "top 5 player" as a rule.  I'm saying that pretty much every champion with the exception of the 2003-04 Pistons is built around one statistically dominant player.  Maybe he's not "top 5"... Maybe he's "Top 10".  But there's always one statistically dominant player on that team who carries them to a title.  It's a superstar's league.   

Just to illustrate my point, I went ahead and looked at all recent champions and looked at the basic NBA efficiency rating (Points + rebounds + assists + steals + blocks ... subtract missed shots and turnovers).    On every champion there was at least one guy who was finishing in the top 10 in the regular season and post season.  Dirk, for instance, was #10 during the regular season when they won a title... a top 5 performer during the playoffs.

RS = Regular Season
PS = Post Season


2012-13 - Miami Heat.  LeBron James = #1 RS, #2 PS
2011-12 - Miami Heat.  LeBron James = #1 RS, #1 PS
2010-11 - Mavericks.  Dirk Nowitzki = #10 RS, #5 PS
2009-10 - Lakers.  Pau Gasol = #5 RS, #5 PS (Kobe #6 PS)
2008-09 - Lakers. Pau Gasol = #7 RS (Kobe #10 RS), #7 PS (Kobe #4 PS)
2007-08 - Celtics.  Kevin Garnett = #9 RS, #7 PS
2006-07 - Spurs.  Tim Duncan = #9 RS, #5 PS
2005-06 - Heat.  Dwayne Wade = #7 RS, #6 PS
2004-05 - Spurs.  Tim Duncan = #6 RS, #6 PS
2003-04 - Pistons.  Ben Wallace = #22 RS, #8 PS
2002-03 - Spurs.  Tim Duncan = #3 RS, #2 PS
2001-02 - Lakers.  Shaq = #3 RS (Kobe #10), Shaq = #4 PS (Kobe #4)
2000-01 - Lakers.  Shaq = #1 RS (Kobe #18),  Shaq = #1 PS (Kobe #5)
1999-00 - Lakers.  Shaq = #1 RS (Kobe #15),  Shaq = #1 PS (Kobe #20)
1998-99 - Spurs.  Duncan = #4 RS, #2 PS
1997-98 - Bulls.  Jordan = #4 RS (Pippen #25), #3 PS (Pippen #14)   

You get the idea from there... it's going to be all Jordan, Hakeem, Isiah, Bird, Magic, etc all the way down the line to Russell and Mikan.  It's always been a superstars league.


Now, the argument I often hear from Celtic fans is that "Rondo is a superstar".   Fine.  Let's take a look at where he ranked.

2012-13 Rondo = #18 RS, N/A PS
2011-12 Rondo = #29 RS, #3 PS
2010-11 Rondo = #39 RS, #22 PS
2009-10 Rondo = #26 RS, #18 PS
2008-09 Rondo = #44 RS, #6 PS
2007-08 Rondo = #98 RS, #52 PS


So I do see where people are coming from.  In 2011-12 playoffs, Rondo was brilliant.   Granted, his huge stats were partially due to the fact he was averaging 43 minutes a night (his per-48 minute efficiency actually had him ranked behind Bron, Durant, Duncan, Rose, Bynum, McGee, Garnett, Big Al and Faried... but that's not really important).  He was absolutely brilliant in the 2011-12 playoffs vs Horfordless Atlanta, an 8th seed Philly team and Mario Chalmers.  No doubt.  And there's no denying that he was brilliant in 2008-09 playoffs when he nearly averaged a triple double vs 20 year old Derrick Rose and Jameer Nelson.   There's no taking that away from Rondo.

What I wonder is... are those two aberrations really who Rondo is?  Is that the gamble you are taking?  And if so, why hasn't he shown it often enough?   And are you confident he'll become that guy when he comes back from an ACL injury that effectively destroyed careers for players like Michael Redd? 

I have my doubts.  Rondo is a fantastic player. Being one of the top 30-40 players in the league is nothing to scoff at.   But every year a title is won by a guy who is one of the 5-10 most statistically dominant players in the league in both the regular season and playoffs.  It's a superstar's league. 


Durant and LeBron are always in the top 2 these days.  Chris Paul is usually top 5 in both regular season and playoffs. Dwight generally had always been up there, but injuries have set him back.  Westbrook is actually statistically pretty incredible.  Harden this year was #5 RS and #9 PS.  Curry was #13 RS, #8 PS.  Healthy Kevin Love is a dominant statistical force in the regular season, but he's been lacking help... and a lot of people feel like he's a poor defender.  But if Kevin Love got healthy and EVENTUALLY lead a team to a title (with supporting stars), it wouldn't be all that shocking...  He puts up Superstar stats.  But unless Boston lands 3 more all-stars to place next to Rondo (like the Billups/Wallace/Wallace/Hamilton Pistons), it would go against an entire history of the league for Rondo to lead a team to a title.  Unless he suddenly and miraculously at age 28 recover from ACL surgery and take the leap into "superstar" status.  It's not happening. 

[BballTim]

KG was statistically the 2nd best player in the league the year before we traded for him (behind leBron) after spending close to a decade as the #1 most dominant statistical player in the league. 

He was absolutely a superstar.

It's not a myth.  Superstars win titles.  Wallace/Wallace Pistons are possibly the only abberation, but they had 4 all-stars on that team and two dominant big men.   

Superstars need talent around them, though... like LeBron in Cleveland and KG and Minny or Jordan before Pippen (pre-Pippen Jordan was statistically dominant, but the team wasn't even playing .500 ball)... you can't do it alone.  But you absolutely need a superstar to win a title.  Not all superstars win titles. Almost all titles have a superstar.

So it appears the two paths you can take to win a title.  #1 is by far the most popular (95% of title teams) and it involves building around a Superstar (which means one of the 5 best players in the league... not merely one of the 5 best SF's or 5 best PG's in the league)  ... Or path #2 is the rare Pistons instance where you can get have two dominant bigs, add two all-star scorers with a deep bench and give them a strong defensive identity.   Boston wasn't in position to do either... so they blew it up with hopes of landing a future superstar.

I'm fairly certain based on experience that you won't answer this question, but, I'll try again just for laughs:

You have defined a "superstar" as a top five player in the league.  Could you now explain how you define who fits into the category of a top five player in the league? 

It would be helpful for the sake of this discussion.

I'm not saying "top 5 player" as a rule.  I'm saying that pretty much every champion with the exception of the 2003-04 Pistons is built around one statistically dominant player.  Maybe he's not "top 5"... Maybe he's "Top 10".  But there's always one statistically dominant player on that team who carries them to a title.  It's a superstar's league.   

Just to illustrate my point, I went ahead and looked at all recent champions and looked at the basic NBA efficiency rating (Points + rebounds + assists + steals + blocks ... subtract missed shots and turnovers).    On every champion there was at least one guy who was finishing in the top 10 in the regular season and post season.  Dirk, for instance, was #10 during the regular season when they won a title... a top 5 performer during the playoffs.

RS = Regular Season
PS = Post Season


2012-13 - Miami Heat.  LeBron James = #1 RS, #2 PS
2011-12 - Miami Heat.  LeBron James = #1 RS, #1 PS
2010-11 - Mavericks.  Dirk Nowitzki = #10 RS, #5 PS
2009-10 - Lakers.  Pau Gasol = #5 RS, #5 PS (Kobe #6 PS)
2008-09 - Lakers. Pau Gasol = #7 RS (Kobe #10 RS), #7 PS (Kobe #4 PS)
2007-08 - Celtics.  Kevin Garnett = #9 RS, #7 PS
2006-07 - Spurs.  Tim Duncan = #9 RS, #5 PS
2005-06 - Heat.  Dwayne Wade = #7 RS, #6 PS
2004-05 - Spurs.  Tim Duncan = #6 RS, #6 PS
2003-04 - Pistons.  Ben Wallace = #22 RS, #8 PS
2002-03 - Spurs.  Tim Duncan = #3 RS, #2 PS
2001-02 - Lakers.  Shaq = #3 RS (Kobe #10), Shaq = #4 PS (Kobe #4)
2000-01 - Lakers.  Shaq = #1 RS (Kobe #18),  Shaq = #1 PS (Kobe #5)
1999-00 - Lakers.  Shaq = #1 RS (Kobe #15),  Shaq = #1 PS (Kobe #20)
1998-99 - Spurs.  Duncan = #4 RS, #2 PS
1997-98 - Bulls.  Jordan = #4 RS (Pippen #25), #3 PS (Pippen #14)   

You get the idea from there... it's going to be all Jordan, Hakeem, Isiah, Bird, Magic, etc all the way down the line to Russell and Mikan.  It's always been a superstars league.


Now, the argument I often hear from Celtic fans is that "Rondo is a superstar".   Fine.  Let's take a look at where he ranked.

2012-13 Rondo = #18 RS, N/A PS
2011-12 Rondo = #29 RS, #3 PS
2010-11 Rondo = #39 RS, #22 PS
2009-10 Rondo = #26 RS, #18 PS
2008-09 Rondo = #44 RS, #6 PS
2007-08 Rondo = #98 RS, #52 PS


So I do see where people are coming from.  In 2011-12 playoffs, Rondo was brilliant.   Granted, his huge stats were partially due to the fact he was averaging 43 minutes a night (his per-48 minute efficiency actually had him ranked behind Bron, Durant, Duncan, Rose, Bynum, McGee, Garnett, Big Al and Faried... but that's not really important).  He was absolutely brilliant in the 2011-12 playoffs vs Horfordless Atlanta, an 8th seed Philly team and Mario Chalmers.  No doubt.  And there's no denying that he was brilliant in 2008-09 playoffs when he nearly averaged a triple double vs 20 year old Derrick Rose and Jameer Nelson.   There's no taking that away from Rondo.

  You're right, there's no taking away from Rondo, no matter how desperately you want to. "Horfordless Atlanta, an 8th seed Philly team and Mario Chalmers" were the 3rd, 4th and 6th best teams in the league. If you payed a bit more attention to the league you'd realize that "He was absolutely brilliant in the 2011-12 playoffs vs some of the best defenses in the league that year" doesn't really convey the sentiment you think it does.

What I wonder is... are those two aberrations really who Rondo is?  Is that the gamble you are taking?  And if so, why hasn't he shown it often enough?

  I'd say it's fair to take health into account. For instance, in 2011 he injured his elbow and played through the injury, which brought his numbers down. He was top 10 in efficiency before that. And in 2010 he suffered some kind of leg injury in the Orlando series (which is probably the only reason he's not in the list of players who have led a team to a title). He was, again, top 10 in efficiency before that.

  Also, since you're so fond of those efficiency numbers to compare players it's probably worth noting that Rondo's efficiency numbers beat out the numbers from KG/PP/RA in each year but 2011, where Rondo's playing with 1 arm for almost a third of those playoffs caused his numbers to fall a little below KG's. Obviously Rondo was ahead of them before that. To add a little more perspective to the conversation, Rondo's efficiency numbers over his last 4 playoffs are well above PP and RA's career numbers. If you ignore the those games he played with one arm his totals for those years would be 23.3, which is only a fraction below KG's career number of 24.

  So if you have a player who's played at (by your definition) a superstar for either all or most of every postseason he's been in aside from his first year as a starter, it's hard to say what he's done is any kind of an aberration. It's also hard to imagine that he'll have any difficulty repeating what he's done unless his injury is much worse than reported since he's *just entering his prime*.

  So since you've been a huge advocate of unloading Rondo, where would you put the odds of one of your plans working out and us landing another player who *regularly* plays like a superstar (by your definition) in the playoffs? Because those players don't come around every year. If you're at all honest you'd admit that Rondo playing at that level for us for the next 6-7 years is significantly higher than anyone we'd get in that time playing at that level, and your quest to unload Rondo really amounts to you wanting to cut off your nose to spite your face.

  Lastly, since you frequently claim that I "love" Rondo I'd like to point out that this wasn't a case of me fishing around on the internet for numbers that make Rondo look good and starting a thread about it. It's a case of the numbers *you* choose for comparing players to each other showing that Rondo, when healthy, is *consistently* a great performer in the playoffs. Which should come as no surprise to anyone who's able to watch the games from a relatively unbiased viewpoint.

[Celtics Insider]

Yes, it is a myth. You don't need a superstar. It helps, but it's not ESSENTIAL.