We must compete now

[Yoki_IsTheName]

Acquiring all star talent with our assets is easier said than done.

But I do agree but we have to go to a process of making sure our assets develop into good players, get their trade values high and try to package them to land that player. Whether it's this year or the next, the first thing we need to do is develop our talent. Which means playing them, making them compete and not on purposely trying to lose.

BTW, since youre a 49ers fan (I assume because of your handle), let me, a Niner fan as well, give you your first CB Tommy Point.

[Celtics18]

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.

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...

You say you are open to logic, but you aren't using legitimate logic yourself.  What you are saying is that a team can't win a title without a top twenty-five player of all-time. 

I don't know what sort of sample size you would need to validate your claim to at least the level of an acceptable rule, but 33 out of 34 (when you haven't even bothered to list who the 25 greatest players of all time are--of which, of course, a standard accepted list doesn't exist) simply isn't enough.

What about the 34 titles before the most recent 34?  Did more than 95% of those teams have a top 25 player of all time?  If so, how many top 25 players of all time are there?

When the numbers change to 33 out of 35 or 34 out of 36 or 35 out of 37 or . . . well, you get the point, will it still be a firm rule that you can't win an NBA title without a top 25 player? 

What may seem like a large enough sample size for you to make your claim in reality is nowhere near a large enough sample size.  You didn't like LooseCannon's Presidents analogy so here's another one.  Let's say a great free throw shooter hits 33 out of 34 foul shots over a given stretch, will that mean that it is impossible for that shooter to ever miss another one?

No.  Of course it isn't.  We all know that. 

[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.

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.

I'd used the Bill Simmons list from a few years ago and assumed that Dirk would have vaulted into the top 25 in the last 3 years (from #37).

Can there be any doubt though most of the others?

24.  Scottie Pippen

23.  Isiah Thomas

22.  Kevin Garnett

21.  Bob Cousy

20.  LeBron James

19.  Charles Barkley

18.  Karl Malone

17.  Bob Pettit

16.  Julius Erving

15.  Kobe Bryant

14.  Elgin Baylor

13.  John Havlicek

The Pantheon

12.  Moses Malone

11.  Shaquille O’Neal

10.  Hakeem Olajuwon

9.  Oscar Robertson

8.  Jerry West

7.  Tim Duncan

6.  Wilt Chamberlain

5.  Larry Bird

4.  Magic Johnson

3.  Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

2.  Bill Russell

1.  Michael Jordan

[lightspeed5]

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.

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...

You say you are open to logic, but you aren't using legitimate logic yourself.  What you are saying is that a team can't win a title without a top twenty-five player of all-time. 

I don't know what sort of sample size you would need to validate your claim to at least the level of an acceptable rule, but 33 out of 34 (when you haven't even bothered to list who the 25 greatest players of all time are--of which, of course, a standard accepted list doesn't exist) simply isn't enough.

What about the 34 titles before the most recent 34?  Did more than 95% of those teams have a top 25 player of all time?  If so, how many top 25 players of all time are there?

When the numbers change to 33 out of 35 or 34 out of 36 or 35 out of 37 or . . . well, you get the point, will it still be a firm rule that you can't win an NBA title without a top 25 player? 

What may seem like a large enough sample size for you to make your claim in reality is nowhere near a large enough sample size.  You didn't like LooseCannon's Presidents analogy so here's another one.  Let's say a great free throw shooter hits 33 out of 34 foul shots over a given stretch, will that mean that it is impossible for that shooter to ever miss another one?

No.  Of course it isn't.  We all know that.

the 34 titles before the last 34 dont count because its before the shot clock era.

[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.

I'd used the Bill Simmons list from a few years ago and assumed that Dirk would have vaulted into the top 25 in the last 3 years (from #37).

Can there be any doubt though most of the others?

24.  Scottie Pippen

23.  Isiah Thomas

22.  Kevin Garnett

21.  Bob Cousy

20.  LeBron James

19.  Charles Barkley

18.  Karl Malone

17.  Bob Pettit

16.  Julius Erving

15.  Kobe Bryant

14.  Elgin Baylor

13.  John Havlicek

The Pantheon

12.  Moses Malone

11.  Shaquille O’Neal

10.  Hakeem Olajuwon

9.  Oscar Robertson

8.  Jerry West

7.  Tim Duncan

6.  Wilt Chamberlain

5.  Larry Bird

4.  Magic Johnson

3.  Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

2.  Bill Russell

1.  Michael Jordan

O.K., well, obviously Simmons' list isn't the definitive list, but even if it were, I don't see how Dirk would be able to bump 11 all-time greats in a matter of three years time.

So, that changes it to 32 out the last 34 champions to have a top 25 player of all time on their roster.

[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.

I'd used the Bill Simmons list from a few years ago and assumed that Dirk would have vaulted into the top 25 in the last 3 years (from #37).

Can there be any doubt though most of the others?

24.  Scottie Pippen

23.  Isiah Thomas

22.  Kevin Garnett

21.  Bob Cousy

20.  LeBron James

19.  Charles Barkley

18.  Karl Malone

17.  Bob Pettit

16.  Julius Erving

15.  Kobe Bryant

14.  Elgin Baylor

13.  John Havlicek

The Pantheon

12.  Moses Malone

11.  Shaquille O’Neal

10.  Hakeem Olajuwon

9.  Oscar Robertson

8.  Jerry West

7.  Tim Duncan

6.  Wilt Chamberlain

5.  Larry Bird

4.  Magic Johnson

3.  Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

2.  Bill Russell

1.  Michael Jordan

http://www.basketball-reference.com/awards/slam_500_greatest.html

Here's a list that has both Garnett and Nowitzki out of the top twenty-five greatest players of all time.  According to this list that makes it 31 out of the last 34 NBA champions to have a top 25 player of all time. 

[EDWARDO]

You say you are open to logic, but you aren't using legitimate logic yourself.  What you are saying is that a team can't win a title without a top twenty-five player of all-time. 

I'm not saying you CAN'T. In fact, I've been careful not to say that. I'm saying its unlikely that you can. Its exceedingly difficult. Its unlikely. And if you are Danny Ainge or any other NBA GM, it'd be foolish to put in process the idea of winning an NBA title without thinking about getting a superstar on the roster. Frankly, its ludicrous to think otherwise... is anyone on this board actually thinking that being good 6-12, or even 3-5 is as important as getting 1-2 GREAT players. No one does, do they?

I don't know what sort of sample size you would need to validate your claim to at least the level of an acceptable rule, but 33 out of 34 (when you haven't even bothered to list who the 25 greatest players of all time are--of which, of course, a standard accepted list doesn't exist) simply isn't enough.

Wait, what? SERIOUSLY??!?  33 out of 34 isn't statistically significant enough for you? Well, I can see why you are not sure what sample size would be enough, because 33 out of 34 is a pretty high ratio and I'm not sure what else would satisfy you.

If you ate at a restaurant 34 times and got sick 33 times, would you still be wondering whether its a good restaurant?

What about the 34 titles before the most recent 34?  Did more than 95% of those teams have a top 25 player of all time?  If so, how many top 25 players of all time are there?

When the numbers change to 33 out of 35 or 34 out of 36 or 35 out of 37 or . . . well, you get the point, will it still be a firm rule that you can't win an NBA title without a top 25 player? 

I haven't gone back to look, but go ahead. I seem to recall Russell winning some of the prior titles...

What may seem like a large enough sample size for you to make your claim in reality is nowhere near a large enough sample size.  You didn't like LooseCannon's Presidents analogy so here's another one.

Oh my. I actually really like Loose Cannon's analogy. He's very right to point out that the country is changing, so we are unlikely to see this same 33 out of 34 scenario play out for the next 34 presidents. Very true!!... but can you or anyone please tell me why this VERY OBVIOUS RELATIONSHIP between winning titles and having at least one ALL TIME GREAT player is going to continue, I'm very open to suggestion. But there is none, is there? I completely agree that in the case of presidents of the US, the old order is completely undone. There is not one piece of evidence or even a workable theory as to why this is the case for NBA title winning teams.

Let's say a great free throw shooter hits 33 out of 34 foul shots over a given stretch, will that mean that it is impossible for that shooter to ever miss another one?

No.  Of course it isn't.  We all know that.

Uh, right. Yes, but would you bet against him making the next one? My argument is that the guy making 33 out of 34 is likely to keep making them.

[LooseCannon]

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...

By your own claim, less than 100% of titles have been won by a team without an all-time top 25 player.  Therefore, it is at least theoretically possible to win without such a player.

It helps to have a transcendently great player just because you need a certain overall talent level to contend for a title and the all-time greats are a very efficient way to get to that level, but history shows it is not an absolute necessity where you have no chance of winning.

[lightspeed5]

the people saying we dont need an superstar are the same people who think we can draft a star easily in the late 1st round instead of tanking or a lotto pick like OKC did to get a couple stars.

we cannot perpetually compete for a title forever. we need a few down years to gain a couple stars and assets. we also cannot draft superstars in the late first round, we'll need to tank, get lotto picks, and hope we can get a stud.

[EDWARDO]

I am fine saying Dirk is not in top 25, though he's very very close. KG is definitely in. But all that is bit meaningless.

You seem to think that i mean to say it is impossible to win without a top 25 player of all-time. I am not saying that. I am saying it is very very unlikely. The line in the sand at #25 is pretty randomly chosen, but it provides a good place to start. In ALMOST EVERY CASE, the NBA title team had a historically great player. Whether its 33 out of 34 or 32 out of 34 (because Dirk would be, what, #27? #29? its complete hairsplitting), it hardly matters. Its MASSIVELY STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT.

Its completely logical to follow from that that you need a superstar to win.

Someone on the board says "you need 12 players to win a title", and that's completely 100% wrong. It just couldn't be more wrong.

[lightspeed5]

I am fine saying Dirk is not in top 25, though he's very very close. KG is definitely in. But all that is bit meaningless.

You seem to think that i mean to say it is impossible to win without a top 25 player of all-time. I am not saying that. I am saying it is very very unlikely. The line in the sand at #25 is pretty randomly chosen, but it provides a good place to start. In ALMOST EVERY CASE, the NBA title team had a historically great player. Whether its 33 out of 34 or 32 out of 34 (because Dirk would be, what, #27? #29? its complete hairsplitting), it hardly matters. Its MASSIVELY STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT.

Its completely logical to follow from that that you need a superstar to win.

Someone on the board says "you need 12 players to win a title", and that's completely 100% wrong. It just couldn't be more wrong.

completely agreed. "the top 25" is just a saying, dirk is a top 30 all-time great who supplements your argument.

[Celtics18]

I am fine saying Dirk is not in top 25, though he's very very close. KG is definitely in. But all that is bit meaningless.

You seem to think that i mean to say it is impossible to win without a top 25 player of all-time. I am not saying that. I am saying it is very very unlikely. The line in the sand at #25 is pretty randomly chosen, but it provides a good place to start. In ALMOST EVERY CASE, the NBA title team had a historically great player. Whether its 33 out of 34 or 32 out of 34 (because Dirk would be, what, #27? #29? its complete hairsplitting), it hardly matters. Its MASSIVELY STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT.

Its completely logical to follow from that that you need a superstar to win.

Someone on the board says "you need 12 players to win a title", and that's completely 100% wrong. It just couldn't be more wrong.

In a previous post you stated that you had been careful to not say that you can't win an NBA title without an all-time great, but saying that you need one to win a title comes awfully close to sounding like you are saying that you can't win a title without one. 

The other point to bring up here is that currently there is only one player in the NBA who is still in his prime who appears on anybody's list of top twenty-five (or even top fifty players) of all time. 

In that case, following your logic, the only reasonable and legitimate hope for winning an NBA title is to acquire Lebron James.  Short of that, there isn't even any point in trying to compete.

Personally, I would disagree with that philosophy.   

[CelticsFan9]

As the roster currently is, the Celtics do not have a championship-caliber squad.  It's that simple.  There are five teams in the East that are significantly better than them, and then around four that are slightly better than them.  I don't think it's totally ludicrous to say the team won't make the playoffs, but I do think it's crazy to think it will compete for a title without major roster moves.

So now the question becomes, "How long until the Celtics compete for a title?"

From what I've read, the 2014 draft is supposed to have eight guaranteed All Stars, with two or three of them possibly being franchise players down the line.  I've heard that the Celtics do not want to be competitive next year, despite quotes from players on the team and coach Stevens.  My guess is they don't make the postseason.

However, I don't see them tanking either.  This presents an issue: if the team finishes, say, tenth in the East, that would mean they're likely to end up without a top-10 pick in reportedly the best draft since 2003.  This worries me.

I am not an advocate at all for tanking as I think it's shameless and embarrassing, but the idea that the Celtics are likely to end up without one of eight really good prospects in the upcoming draft concerns me in regards to the future of the franchise.

If the season pans out the way I think it will, Boston is headed down the road of mediocrity unless Ainge makes some major roster moves.

Back to my initial question...

The fate of the Celtics relies on Brad Stevens and Danny Ainge.  Stevens has to develop the players and get their value up to a point where they become tradeable assets.  It's up to Ainge to find trades that will acquire star talent to pair with Rondo (the only player on the team that I wouldn't trade right now).

If those two can get this done by 2015, the Celtics could be back in contention much sooner than originally expected.

[lightspeed5]

I am fine saying Dirk is not in top 25, though he's very very close. KG is definitely in. But all that is bit meaningless.

You seem to think that i mean to say it is impossible to win without a top 25 player of all-time. I am not saying that. I am saying it is very very unlikely. The line in the sand at #25 is pretty randomly chosen, but it provides a good place to start. In ALMOST EVERY CASE, the NBA title team had a historically great player. Whether its 33 out of 34 or 32 out of 34 (because Dirk would be, what, #27? #29? its complete hairsplitting), it hardly matters. Its MASSIVELY STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT.

Its completely logical to follow from that that you need a superstar to win.

Someone on the board says "you need 12 players to win a title", and that's completely 100% wrong. It just couldn't be more wrong.

In a previous post you stated that you had been careful to not say that you can't win an NBA title without an all-time great, but saying that you need one to win a title comes awfully close to sounding like you are saying that you can't win a title without one. 

The other point to bring up here is that currently there is only one player in the NBA who is still in his prime who appears on anybody's list of top twenty-five (or even top fifty players) of all time. 

In that case, following your logic, the only reasonable and legitimate hope for winning an NBA title is to acquire Lebron James.  Short of that, there isn't even any point in trying to compete.

Personally, I would disagree with that philosophy.

he means for the most part, you almost always need 1.  And no, because there are players today that will likely crack that list of top 30, like Kevin Durant. some will come close, like dwight howard.

[Clench123]

Yea, for Cheetos