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.
I hate to nitpick (I don't really--I love to nitpick), but in your original post you said that you needed a top five player to win a championship. When you went back and looked at the numbers, you amended that to top ten to fit your theory. That's fine.
I'll accept that as your theory, that in any given year--with the exception of the '04 Pistons--you need a top ten player in the league to win a title.
Now, let's look at Rondo. Based on the same numbers you are using, he has been the 15th best player in the league over the past two seasons when you combine his regular season and playoff numbers. (I think that when using these numbers--which obviously aren't perfect--it would actually make more sense to weight the playoff numbers slightly higher than the regular season numbers. We all know that superstars are made in the playoffs. But, I won't attempt to do that for this argument).
Anyway, Rondo has been a top fifteen player. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that he has the ability to make it into the top ten for a season or two at some point over the course of the next five years.
Basically, I think it's worth the risk to attempt to build the team around him going forward. Danny has started to set up a situation where he's in decent position to add some pieces around him. He's got a lot of picks coming up in the coming years (probably not a lot--if any--high lottery ones, but the sheer volume makes them strong assets). He's got some decent young players on the roster, and if he plays his cards right, he may even have some free agent money to spend in the near future.
I say it's worth the risk, but what is the risk? That we don't win a title with Rondo as the leader (or one of the leaders) of the team?
Of course, that's a legitimate risk, but that risk is even higher if we dump Rondo for more assets right now. For some reason, a lot of fans will be fine with not being a legitimate title contender over the course of the next 5 to 7 years as long as it's a team without Rondo on it.
That doesn't make sense to me. We've got the assets, we've got the borderline superstar, who is going to be right in the wheelhouse of his prime when we are trying to contend again. That's a huge thing. You can get all the blue chip prospects you want, but in the NBA, we've seen that without veteran help, it's tough for young stars to win titles early in their careers no matter how great they are.
Now, this brings us around to another common argument against Rondo, namely, that he'll never be a "veteran leader." He's too much of a hot head, too stubborn, too much of an unlikable odd ball.
I don't buy that theory. It seems to me that right around most players' late twenties/early thirties is when they generally start to enter their prime. They enter their primes during these years, not so much because their athletic abilities or even their skills improve drastically, but because this is an age where humans naturally start to mature into more focused and confident adults. I don't think this holds true just for athletes, but for people in general.
So, I say let's see what Rondo can do and what Danny can do to put the right pieces around him over the course of the next few years.
It's not even really a risk. The worst that can happen is that we don't win any more titles over that span. But, if we work for the basement to completely rebuild, we wouldn't win any titles anyway.
Topic: Is the NBA superstar winnning formula more perception than reality (Read 15251 times)