Is the NBA superstar winnning formula more perception than reality

[crimson_stallion]

How do you define superstar? 

Off the top of my head I would say that Chris Paul, Derek Rose, Kobe, Lebron, Durant and Howard are guys that mosti would consider superstars of this era.

How about Andrew Bynum?  Many people consider him to be a better center than Dwight, yet somehow nobody really thinks of him as a superstar.

How about Russel Westbrook?  Is he really a step below Rose as a player?  I don't think so. 

How about Dwyane Wade?  He was unquestionably a superstar prior to Lebron coming on board, but now that Lebron is there Wade's numbers aren't looking any more impressive than someone like James Harden - who I would certainly not categorise as a superstar. Bosh is certainly not a superstar either, but many would consider him one when he was averaging 25/12 for a terrible Raptors team.

How about Rondo?  You can very legitimately argue that he is the second best PG in the NBA. You can even make an argument that he is #1 because now that Kidd retired Rondo is now the NBA's active leader in career triple doubles - that's a pretty darn impressive feat.  What it is that decides he is not a superstar - is it simply the fact that he doesn't average 20+ PPG? Because if that's all it is, the isn't that a little bit...shallow?

Back in 2012 when we took Miami to 7 games in the ECF, Rondo played like a beast that entire series, but he was never labelled a superstar.  I can absolutely GUARANTEE you that if Boston knocked off Miami and won a title that year, Rondo would have come into 2013 with a superstar title under his name and he would have been seen as an undisputed top 2 PG in the NBA.

Often the 'superstar' title gets branded on people based on the context they play in.  If you look at KG's numbers in 2008 he was averaging about 18/9 which (on the surface) few people would look at as superstar numbers.  Even today many people look at KG and say he was on the decline when he joined he Celtics.  Garbage - in 2007 (only one year prior) KG averated 24/14/6, had the best season of his career, and was voted the league MVP.  Do people really think he went from the best player in the NBA to a mere 'All-Star' in the space of one season?  No.  His numbers dropped because of a reduced role and more sharing of responsibility, and superstar status always gets based on numbers.

Another example is Harden. He was a sixth man in OKC and was nobody thought THAT much of him, but then he goes to a comparatively average Houston team where he is the #1 option and suddenly he averages 26 PPG, and soon the superstar label will be thrown on him too.

Rondo was sharing the court with two superstars and a borderline superstar for most of his career and everybody points to that as a reason for his success.  Once those guys go, how do we know he won't take on more of the scoring load and end up an 20/10/6 guy? 

The whole superstar label is one of convenience I think.  I don't belive you need a superstar, I  believe you just need a group of very good players who complement each other perfectly.  For example you NEED a player who can be relied on as a go-to scorer who can put 30+ points on the board on any given night.  He doesn't have to be a superstar, he can just be an elite scorer - but you need that type of player to dig yourself out of big holes, to put away teams that keep climbing back, and to put constant offensive pressure on your opponent.   You also need elite defensive stoppers who can STOP opposing teams from lighting you up.  You need playmakers who can orchestrate a offense.  You need a great 6th man who can bring energy and dominate when your starters are having a bad night.  You need a second and third scoring option (i.e. Garnett and Allen) for those nights when your first scoring option (i.e. Pierce) is struggling. You need guys who can score inside to draw double teams and open up your shooters...and you need shooters who can scare the defense away from collapsing on your interior scorers.

At the end of the day if you have all the right pieces, you have every opportunity to contend for a title.  Out 2012 Celtics team almost knocked off Miami and their three-headed monster and how many superstars did we have that season?  KG was on the decline, Pierce and Allen were both hurt AND on the decline.  Neither of those guys was a superstart at that point.  Rondo apparently never has been, so in theory we had no superstars...but we challenged them to the end because we had players who played their roles well and who simply played hard.

[PhoSita]

This is probably a good time to point out that the Pistons played such a defensively intense style that they almost single handedly caused rule changes to make the NBA more watchable.

You are referring to the early '90s Pistons, right?  The 2004 Pistons did it with the new rule changes.

Nope!

Although there is some confusion on the phrase "rule changes." I was referring to this:

Per http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_history.html

2004-05 – New rules were introduced to curtail hand-checking, clarify blocking fouls and call defensive three seconds to open up the game.

Absolutely enacted due to the Pistons-Lakers series.

Yeah, this is a vital clarification whenever somebody brings up that Pistons team.

The league has changed the rules to benefit guys like Rose, Westbrook, Wade, and Lebron -- athletically superior players who are really good at getting to the rim.

It's much harder to build a team around dominant physical defense and timely shot-making these days.  You need superlative one on one scorers and multiple wing defenders with size who can slow down the superstars without fouling.

[Celtics4ever]

Perception equals reality on this one.  Most title teams have a superstar on them, I can think of a few exceptions though.

[TitleMaster]

In '94, when Jordan was on hiatus, the Pippen lead Bulls won some 55 games, only two games less than the prior season. Had Pippen not gotten that phantom call in game 5, they would have advanced to the finals that year, without Jordan.

Thus, the loaded defensive unit is as much key to a finals run, as the superstar syndrome. The Pistons clearly had that against the Lakers. You need the team defensive prowess to prevent opponents from mounting a serious comeback but then ... the *superstar* seals the deal with superman-like performance, during moments when the others may falter on offensive or defense. Remember that particular block (ala Olajuwon on Stark's game winner in game 6 '94 Finals) or when Jordan had his 55 pts on Barkley's Suns a couple of years earlier. Without those Herculean episodes, chances are, neither teams would have won the finals.

What separated the Pistons from the stereotype is that a different person donned the superman cloak on a different night, while the whole unit focused on exceptional defense. So it was either Billups, the Wallace bros, or Rip playing an all-star contest on a different game.

[PhoSita]

In '94, when Jordan was on hiatus, the Pippen lead Bulls won some 55 games, only two games less than the prior season. Had Pippen not gotten that phantom call in game 5, they would have advanced to the finals that year, without Jordan.

Thus, the loaded defensive unit is as much key to a finals run, as the superstar syndrome. The Pistons clearly had that against the Lakers. You need the team defensive prowess to prevent opponents from mounting a serious comeback but then ... the *superstar* seals the deal with superman-like performance, during moments when the others may falter on offensive or defense. Remember that particular block (ala Olajuwon on Stark's game winner in game 6 '94 Finals) or when Jordan had his 55 pts on Barkley's Suns a couple of years earlier. Without those Herculean episodes, chances are, neither teams would have won the finals.

What separated the Pistons from the stereotype is that a different person donned the superman cloak on a different night, while the whole unit focused on exceptional defense. So it was either Billups, the Wallace bros, or Rip playing an all-star contest on a different game.

Another thing re: the Pistons is that the new CBA heavily militates against such teams being formed.

It's much easier to build a contender around one or two stars with a capable supporting cast (particularly one comprised of young players on cheap 1st or 2nd deals) than it is to acquire 3-4 All-Star caliber players.

It's just way too expensive these days to accumulate talent in that way.

[BballTim]

Perception equals reality on this one.  Most title teams have a superstar on them, I can think of a few exceptions though.

 You also have to understand that all the analysis and labeling is after the fact. Dirk was never seen as a player who could lead a team to a title until he did, same with KG. If Rondo had been a little healthier in the 2010 playoffs then many of the same people who are claiming we need to dump him because he can't lead a team to a title would say we need to keep him because he can. He's led one team to the finals and another team to within a game of the finals, he's clearly someone you can build a contender around. Also, for all the talk that he's "too old", he's as young or younger than many of the "superstars" were when they started winning titles.

[D.o.s.]

Maybe perception is the 2012/2013 L.A. Lakers. Some people were seriously thinking they would go 73-9. I kid you not. I mean... 73-9? What were people smoking?

And maybe reality is the 2012/2013 back-to-back NBA champions, the Miami Heat. Yes, they were led by arguably the best player in this universe... but they had the parts, too.

While there was certainly a lot of hyperbole, the Lakers had, on paper, one of the best starting fives in the league.

[rondoallaturca]

In '94, when Jordan was on hiatus, the Pippen lead Bulls won some 55 games, only two games less than the prior season. Had Pippen not gotten that phantom call in game 5, they would have advanced to the finals that year, without Jordan.

Thus, the loaded defensive unit is as much key to a finals run, as the superstar syndrome. The Pistons clearly had that against the Lakers. You need the team defensive prowess to prevent opponents from mounting a serious comeback but then ... the *superstar* seals the deal with superman-like performance, during moments when the others may falter on offensive or defense. Remember that particular block (ala Olajuwon on Stark's game winner in game 6 '94 Finals) or when Jordan had his 55 pts on Barkley's Suns a couple of years earlier. Without those Herculean episodes, chances are, neither teams would have won the finals.

What separated the Pistons from the stereotype is that a different person donned the superman cloak on a different night, while the whole unit focused on exceptional defense. So it was either Billups, the Wallace bros, or Rip playing an all-star contest on a different game.

Another thing re: the Pistons is that the new CBA heavily militates against such teams being formed.

It's much easier to build a contender around one or two stars with a capable supporting cast (particularly one comprised of young players on cheap 1st or 2nd deals) than it is to acquire 3-4 All-Star caliber players.

It's just way too expensive these days to accumulate talent in that way.

You can't be serious, right? The whole point of the CBA is to encourage balanced rosters. Stern wants talent dispersed as much as possible in the league. There's a reason why the teams that are succeeding now are the ones that don't have many stars, but competent players up and down the roster. To say that the CBA somehow discourages that is ludicrous.

[guava_wrench]

You can't be serious, right? The whole point of the CBA is to encourage balanced rosters. Stern wants talent dispersed as much as possible in the league. There's a reason why the teams that are succeeding now are the ones that don't have many stars, but competent players up and down the roster. To say that the CBA somehow discourages that is ludicrous.

That is not the main point of the CBA at all. The main point of the CBA is to keep the NBA and each team profitable, and to ensure that the players get paid in accordance with the value they bring to the game.

Parity is only part of the CBA in that it helps franchises from going bankrupt. The cap is more concerned with spending arms races that makes the league no longer viable.

[rondoallaturca]

You can't be serious, right? The whole point of the CBA is to encourage balanced rosters. Stern wants talent dispersed as much as possible in the league. There's a reason why the teams that are succeeding now are the ones that don't have many stars, but competent players up and down the roster. To say that the CBA somehow discourages that is ludicrous.

That is not the main point of the CBA at all. The main point of the CBA is to keep the NBA and each team profitable, and to ensure that the players get paid in accordance with the value they bring to the game.

Parity is only part of the CBA in that it helps franchises from going bankrupt. The cap is more concerned with spending arms races that makes the league no longer viable.

Touche. I shouldn't have categorized it as the "whole point" because you're definitely right that the biggest intentions for the CBA is to keep the league profitable.

[guava_wrench]

Having a superstar or two usually makes you a better team. It is rare that teams can become elite without a superstar. They can, like the Pistons with Billups, but it is rare.

Having insanely good players, like Duncan, Kobe or Lebron, also tends to make your team pretty darn good. Add some complimentary talent and you have a good chance.

People are looking at this backwards. There is no magic formula, but it is hard to be a great team with individual great talents.

[NYDan]

I've seen too much data and analysis that proves, at least going by the NBA seasons we have to draw from, that the best way to maximize championship potential is with a top 5 player.

http://www.82games.com/dennis.htm

Just read through the article above to refresh a few points on the question. The data only goes up to 2005, but the patterns still hold. A few noteworthy stats:

92% of NBA Champions had a recent All-NBA 1st Team Selection
81% of NBA Champions had a recent All-Defensive 1st Team Selection
92% of NBA Champions had a Player Ranked in the Top 8 in Efficiency the Preceding Season
No NBA team has won a championship without a Top 5 player or Top 5 defender

So yes, I am a big believer in the superstar theory, though there's always the potential for exceptions. And, not surprisingly by design, the best way to acquire one of those with a good chance to keep them around is through the draft.

[rondoallaturca]

I've seen too much data and analysis that proves, at least going by the NBA seasons we have to draw from, that the best way to maximize championship potential is with a top 5 player.

http://www.82games.com/dennis.htm

Just read through the article above to refresh a few points on the question. The data only goes up to 2005, but the patterns still hold. A few noteworthy stats:

92% of NBA Champions had a recent All-NBA 1st Team Selection
81% of NBA Champions had a recent All-Defensive 1st Team Selection
92% of NBA Champions had a Player Ranked in the Top 8 in Efficiency the Preceding Season
No team has won an NBA title without a Top 10 caliber defender

So yes, I am a big believer in the superstar theory, though there's always the potential for exceptions. And, not surprisingly by design, the best way to acquire one of those with a good chance to keep them around is through the draft.

I can't argue with the statistics. Historically, there's no debate that you need those superstar players to maximize your chances of winning; there were some eras in history where it's absolutely necessary of having those superstar players to even have a shot at winning.

I just think that with the way the league is headed, we shouldn't put as much stock in the past because, well, the past is the past. My argument is weak because while these balanced teams are getting deeper and deeper into the postseason each year, none of them have actually won. However, I think it's reasonable expect one of them finally coming out on top in the near future.

[PhoSita]

In '94, when Jordan was on hiatus, the Pippen lead Bulls won some 55 games, only two games less than the prior season. Had Pippen not gotten that phantom call in game 5, they would have advanced to the finals that year, without Jordan.

Thus, the loaded defensive unit is as much key to a finals run, as the superstar syndrome. The Pistons clearly had that against the Lakers. You need the team defensive prowess to prevent opponents from mounting a serious comeback but then ... the *superstar* seals the deal with superman-like performance, during moments when the others may falter on offensive or defense. Remember that particular block (ala Olajuwon on Stark's game winner in game 6 '94 Finals) or when Jordan had his 55 pts on Barkley's Suns a couple of years earlier. Without those Herculean episodes, chances are, neither teams would have won the finals.

What separated the Pistons from the stereotype is that a different person donned the superman cloak on a different night, while the whole unit focused on exceptional defense. So it was either Billups, the Wallace bros, or Rip playing an all-star contest on a different game.

Another thing re: the Pistons is that the new CBA heavily militates against such teams being formed.

It's much easier to build a contender around one or two stars with a capable supporting cast (particularly one comprised of young players on cheap 1st or 2nd deals) than it is to acquire 3-4 All-Star caliber players.

It's just way too expensive these days to accumulate talent in that way.

You can't be serious, right? The whole point of the CBA is to encourage balanced rosters. Stern wants talent dispersed as much as possible in the league. There's a reason why the teams that are succeeding now are the ones that don't have many stars, but competent players up and down the roster. To say that the CBA somehow discourages that is ludicrous.

It's not ludicrous at all.  The CBA militates against such teams being kept together for very long because players will enjoy success, show that they are worthy of nice contracts, and then have to be let go because the teams can't afford them anymore.

We've already seen that with OKC having to give up Harden, and the Grizzlies having to give away Gay.

We will still see nice, balanced teams like the Pacers that make the most of young talent.  But it will be difficult to ever have a loaded group stay together for more than a few seasons at a time.

Because the luxury tax is so prohibitive now, it is much more financially feasible to build a team around 1 or 2 guys making a lot of money and surround them with bargain deals than it is try to to field a team with 4 or 5 players that take up 90% of the cap.

In that sense, the "parity" aspect of the CBA helps to keep lower level talent moving around the NBA and keeps the top teams from hoarding it.  But it benefits the Miamis of the world at least as much because the best counter to a team with 2-3 superstars would be a team that has 5-6 players who are at or near an All-Star level.  In a league without such penalties, the Nets or Lakers could acquire all the Joe Johnsons, Andre Iguodalas, Andrei Kirilenkos, David Lees, Kevin Garnetts, Paul Millsaps, and Josh Smiths of the world and try to overcome the teams built around 2-3 stars.  But that's not possible anymore, at least not for more than one or two seasons at a time.


The point is that there are still only 10-15 true franchise players in the league at any given time, and the new CBA doesn't really do much to make sure those players get spread out more.  It just forces the next 30-40 best players to distribute more evenly throughout the league.

[Moranis]

I've seen too much data and analysis that proves, at least going by the NBA seasons we have to draw from, that the best way to maximize championship potential is with a top 5 player.

http://www.82games.com/dennis.htm

Just read through the article above to refresh a few points on the question. The data only goes up to 2005, but the patterns still hold. A few noteworthy stats:

92% of NBA Champions had a recent All-NBA 1st Team Selection
81% of NBA Champions had a recent All-Defensive 1st Team Selection
92% of NBA Champions had a Player Ranked in the Top 8 in Efficiency the Preceding Season
No team has won an NBA title without a Top 10 caliber defender

So yes, I am a big believer in the superstar theory, though there's always the potential for exceptions. And, not surprisingly by design, the best way to acquire one of those with a good chance to keep them around is through the draft.

I can't argue with the statistics. Historically, there's no debate that you need those superstar players to maximize your chances of winning; there were some eras in history where it's absolutely necessary of having those superstar players to even have a shot at winning.

I just think that with the way the league is headed, we shouldn't put as much stock in the past because, well, the past is the past. My argument is weak because while these balanced teams are getting deeper and deeper into the postseason each year, none of them have actually won. However, I think it's reasonable expect one of them finally coming out on top in the near future.

where is the league headed exactly.  I mean the champions and runner-ups the last five years still all had all time greats. Until teams that don't start making and winning nva finals you can't claim otherwise.  And it needs to be multiple otherwise it is just another 04 poisons team.