We must compete now

[49ers/Celtics]

I dont believe n tanking we must make a move this year all the king james and durants rondo right there to we have multiple 1st round picks so lets get players in the league who had sucess  now. We can use some of our 1st round picks and use the brookln rejects and build a foundation with all star players then we go for paul george next year. Already

[JHTruth]

[Yogi]

I expect to win 98 games this season.  If we lose one game, I will expect we win 97.  It's just basketball.  If you don't expect to win, then you shouldn't play.

[49ers/Celtics]

U got to get all star players to win

[lightspeed5]

U got to get all star players win

exactly. and those players need to mesh.

[Yogi]

U got to get all star players win

No.  You need 12 players who can play basketball well to win.

[EDWARDO]

U got to get all star players win

No.  You need 12 players who can play basketball well to win.

Completely wrong... the Heat from 4-12 are awful. They have the best player in the world, so they win it all. The Pacers from 6-12 are the worst team in the league, but their top 2 guys are very very good. We were EXCEPTIONALLY deep last year, but couldn't make it out of round 1.

33 of the last 34 titles were won by a team with one of the top 25 players of all-time. All that matters is trying to find one of those guys... the rest is important, but MUCH less difficult to do. In fact, we've already done it... Rondo, Green, Bradley, Sully, KO, Bass, Lee can fit nicely around a superstar... if we drop a Lebron or Durant onto this roster, we have the pieces to compete.... some will say "well that's true of a LOT of teams, almost ALL the teams!!"... and that's true... and its entirely the point...you need a SUPERSTAR to win in this league, you can't win with 12 bit players.

[Yogi]

Completely wrong... the Heat from 4-12 are awful. They have the best player in the world, so they win it all. The Pacers from 6-12 are the worst team in the league, but their top 2 guys are very very good. We were EXCEPTIONALLY deep last year, but couldn't make it out of round 1.

33 of the last 34 titles were won by a team with one of the top 25 players of all-time. All that matters is trying to find one of those guys... the rest is important, but MUCH less difficult to do. In fact, we've already done it... Rondo, Green, Bradley, Sully, KO, Bass, Lee can fit nicely around a superstar... if we drop a Lebron or Durant onto this roster, we have the pieces to compete.... some will say "well that's true of a LOT of teams, almost ALL the teams!!"... and that's true... and its entirely the point...you need a SUPERSTAR to win in this league, you can't win with 12 bit players.

"Because it has always been so" is not a reason. 

To win a game you must score more than your opponent.  To win a series, you must do it 4 times out of 7.  To win the championship you have to win 4 series. 

All-stars, super-stars, top 25, top 10, in their prime, over the hill, too small, too inexperienced, not athletic those are just excuses.

This is not Hollywood.  This is not South Beach. 

[EDWARDO]

I'm not seeing your point. It seems like there is no point.

i've given you hard evidence of why you have to have a superstar to win a title. A genuine superstar. 33 out of 34 times. Statistically significant.

I've also pointed out why the importance of the players after the first 2 or 3 drop in importance incredibly significantly.

Your response has nothing to do with anything. What exactly are you trying to say? I think there's probably some sort of message in it, but its not coming through... The team that scores the most points wins? This is not Hollywood and not South Beach?

[Yogi]

I'm not seeing your point. It seems like there is no point.

i've given you hard evidence of why you have to have a superstar to win a title. A genuine superstar. 33 out of 34 times. Statistically significant.

I've also pointed out why the importance of the players after the first 2 or 3 drop in importance incredibly significantly.

Your response has nothing to do with anything. What exactly are you trying to say? I think there's probably some sort of message in it, but its not coming through... The team that scores the most points wins? This is not Hollywood and not South Beach?

You are giving evidence for a correlation.  If you believe because of that you NEED a superstar to win, then it must be a difficult life as a fan. 

Some live to make history, not look at it like some unchanging law. 

[EDWARDO]

Still no logic to back up your thesis? Anything meaningful to add other than correlation is not causation? I'm open to that, but it doesn't seem like there's any reasoning or thought process here... just platitudes...

[LooseCannon]

i've given you hard evidence of why you have to have a superstar to win a title. A genuine superstar. 33 out of 34 times. Statistically significant.

43 out of 44 presidents have been white males.  Therefore, it would be stupid for a major party to run a presidential candidate who is either non-white or non-male.

[Fan from VT]

Also remember our offense was 13th then 17th then 24th then 20th...and now we lost Pierce and KG. I have low expectations for a bottom-half offensive team that has now lost Pierce/KG.

[Celtics18]

U got to get all star players win

No.  You need 12 players who can play basketball well to win.

Completely wrong... the Heat from 4-12 are awful. They have the best player in the world, so they win it all. The Pacers from 6-12 are the worst team in the league, but their top 2 guys are very very good. We were EXCEPTIONALLY deep last year, but couldn't make it out of round 1.

33 of the last 34 titles were won by a team with one of the top 25 players of all-time. All that matters is trying to find one of those guys... the rest is important, but MUCH less difficult to do. In fact, we've already done it... Rondo, Green, Bradley, Sully, KO, Bass, Lee can fit nicely around a superstar... if we drop a Lebron or Durant onto this roster, we have the pieces to compete.... some will say "well that's true of a LOT of teams, almost ALL the teams!!"... and that's true... and its entirely the point...you need a SUPERSTAR to win in this league, you can't win with 12 bit players.

I think that to make a statement that bold, you are going to need to give the definitive list of the top 25 players of all-time.

[EDWARDO]

i've given you hard evidence of why you have to have a superstar to win a title. A genuine superstar. 33 out of 34 times. Statistically significant.

43 out of 44 presidents have been white males.  Therefore, it would be stupid for a major party to run a presidential candidate who is either non-white or non-male.

OOH, that's good. I like that. In this case, the correlation vs causation argument is valid. The country is clearly changing and acceptance (i would say outright preference) for non-white males is growing. So you are absolutely right to point out that this in this case, this is unlikely to be the case going forward. In this particular case, I would agree that the fact that 43 of the last 44 are white males is a specious argument for nominating a white male. EXCELLENT POINT.

It doesn't really help here though, does it? There's no thought/thesis/hyposthesis that supports an argument that "you need 12 good players to win an NBA title". (Wait, is that the argument? I'm not even sure what the argument is, to be honest.)

I'm open to SOME, ANY!, logic as to why you don't need a top 25 player of all time to win a title... none is being offered... in fact, NOTHING is being offered...